Members of the Supreme Court react at the State of the Union 2026 If ever there were doubt that I am a bit of a geek, one need not look further than how I spent my summer vacation, because only a geek would spend a good chunk of July reading Supreme Court opinions and dissents. And if that weren’t enough, I washed it all down by rereading many of the Federalist Papers, authored in defense of the then newly-written Constitution during the ratification period by the brilliant Alexander Hamilton; the father of the Constitution, James Madison; and the one most often forgotten, John Jay. This summer reading wasn’t random. It was stimulated by the end of this year’s Supreme Court term a few weeks ago. It isn’t abnormal for the last decisions handed down each term to be their more difficult or controversial. This year was no different. But it would do us well to remember that over 40% of their decisions this year, as in most, were unanimous. Ignoring that fact paints too hyperbolic a picture of our Law being transitory. But the headlines, and that transitory feel, come from the cases in the 60%. And the decisions that ended this term left many frustrated on both sides of the political spectrum. When I think of disappointment in a Court decision, my mind goes to an interview I once saw with former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in which he discussed his disappointment with the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. It isn’t what he said about that important case that I remember. Instead, it was how he handled his disappointment. He said, “But there we are and now we go on,” onto the next thing, “so that you can do a decent job on the next thing and you just keep going.” That is certainly a healthier way to approach defeat than how many of us might. Judicial philosophy or political bent aside, we can learn from each other and there is much about his comportment that I just adore. Before diving into the specific cases that ended the term, I want to spend some time talking about just how badly our civics teachers let us down in seventh grade by teaching this notion that we have three co-equal branches of government. We do not. And a reading of the Federalist Papers would quickly disabuse anyone of that notion. The Judiciary, as Hamilton pointed out in Federalist #78 is the weakest of the branches. Whereas the Legislature “commands the purse,” he wrote, and the Executive “holds the sword,” the Judiciary “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgements.” No, in the founders’ minds, the Legislature was the strongest branch. It was set up to be the most responsive to the people, writing the laws the Executive enforces and the Judiciary interprets. Even its placement as Article I of the Constitution coveys its primacy. It was given many clearly enumerated powers, encompassing almost all powers really. And the last of its enumerated powers is a giant cover-all power referred to as the “necessary and proper” clause. In fact, given the new system, the Federalist writers expressed more concern at the Legislature’s ability to usurp power, than the Executive’s. And that is why they broke it into two chambers with two different means of election. In the system they built, informed as it was by the usurpations of their former monarch, the Executive, as defined in Article II, was given few enumerated powers and many of those listed are constrained by the Legislature, reinforcing the Legislature’s primacy. For example, the Executive is the Commander-in-Chief, but only when those under his command are “called into actual service of the United States.” It is to Congress to declare war. It is to Congress to raise and support the armies. It is to Congress to provide “for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Executive has the power to make treaties, but only so long as two thirds of the Senate concurs. He may nominate officers, but only under the advice and consent of the Senate. In terms of actual policy, all he may really do is to “recommend to their (Congress’) Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” We rave about the system of checks and balances the founders established. But interestingly, nowhere in the Constitution does it expressly say that the Supreme Court can check the other branches by declaring a law or an executive action unconstitutional. It simply says in Article VI that the Constitution “shall be the supreme law of the Land” and in Article III that “the judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court.” Read in between those lines, and informed by Hamilton’s Federalist #78, the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) gave to itself the power of judicial review that allows it to declare laws or executive action unconstitutional. But the declaration thereof is as far as their power goes. So what is the proper role of the Judiciary? Judicial review does not mean it is for the Judiciary to decide extra-constitutionally what should be, even if that ‘should be’ is the right thing. It is to them merely to interpret what both the Constitution and the subordinate laws passed by Congress say should be. And this is where I struggle with some decisions of the Court and with some dissents. Because while some things said are reasonable, and perhaps are how things should be, that doesn’t mean the Court can or should implement them. Implement is a Congressional term. It is forward looking. The Court should be backward looking – applying what already is. The challenge is that we currently live in a world where Congress struggles to act. We also live in a time where it is difficult to imagine any scenario buy which we could ever get the requisite 38 states needed to ratify a change to our Constitution. And in the void those two inconvenient truths leave, judicial review can be tempted toward judicial activism and recommending measures “necessary and expedient” can be tempted toward overreach by executive order. And if all that weren’t challenging enough, welcome to more Constitutional vaguery, because nowhere does it say the Executive must adhere to the decisions of the Judiciary, let alone enforce its decisions. It simply assumes the holder of the office will do so because his oath is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” If the oath is to ‘preserve’ and the Constitution is the ‘supreme law,’ then surely the Executive will adhere to the Constitution, right? In Federalist #76, Hamilton said, “The institution of delegated power implies that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence.” I speak often about my respect for the work the founders did forming this nation. The Republic they left us is a brilliant system. But the Constitution makes the assumption that officers of the United States will act virtuously, and that when they don’t, the voter – be he a Senator in an impeachment trial or a citizen at the polling place – will act virtuously to remove them. But as the villain once said in a Steven Seagal movie, “Assumption is the mother of all f-ups.” There is no virtue in voting to acquit in your party that which you would convict in the other. But it happens. There is no virtue in going into a polling place either ill-informed or letting your wallet, alone, cast the vote. But it happens. Where the system the founders left us fails, it is precisely because we lack the virtue to do the right or because we possess either the hubris or intellectual laziness to dismiss that which they so ably built. I leave you with one more thing before I discuss a bit of the cases just decided. We all know and revere the name of our first executive, George Washington. But do any of us know the name of our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? The answer is John Jay, the same Federalist author we most often forget. Perhaps that is fitting proof of just where the Judiciary stands relative to the other branches. Had only I known this to tell Mr. Zito in seventh grade. The common thread in each of the cases below is that while there is a legal argument perhaps rightly decided, perhaps not, we are left with a less-than-ideal outcome that begs the question, now what? And the ‘now what’ questions are for the most powerful group in our system of government…the people. Trump v. Barbara Trump v. Barbara is the case that challenged President Trump’s Executive Order 14160 regarding birthright citizenship. The outcome was 6-3, with the three liberal justices joining two conservative justices in full and one other conservative justice in part to reaffirm that all persons born in the United States are US citizens. I am always intrigued when the outcome isn’t completely along philosophical divisions. For right or for wrong, it always makes me believe that real work was done to interpret the law rather than real work being done to find the rationale for a preferred outcome. Barbara was well decided but probably wrong for our nation. It was rightly decided because the words of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution are as clear as they may be broad – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” We know historically that this was a Reconstruction amendment made to enshrine into law that the freed slaves were indeed citizens of the United States and that all people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. But the text doesn’t add the qualifier that this was a one-time thing to address a one-time moment in history that may thereafter be disregarded. Try as some might, a child of an illegal immigrant born here was born here. Try as some might, both that child and those parents are subject to the “jurisdiction thereof.” If they not be, they may argue after committing a homicide here that we’ve not the jurisdiction to try them. But unlike the child of a diplomat, they cannot. And try as some dissenting justices did in dissenting, there isn’t an intent of domicile loophole anywhere in the text. But the decision is wrong for our country because it incents the very behavior we seek to restrict. And if jumping the line to enter the country illegally comes with the prize of automatic citizenship for one’s future child – and all the benefits that entails – then jumping the line has an increased value that may justify increased risk to get here. Furthermore, though I realize birth tourism only accounts for 5,000-10,000 of the 3.5 million births in the US per year, granting citizenship to the child of someone passing through fundamentally makes no sense and is a slap in the face to those waiting patiently to enter legally. The “right of the soil” may be the common law our system is based upon, as the majority opinion exhaustively discusses, but if it is, it incents being on this soil by whatever means necessary. And is that what we want or need? A nation cannot be secure without knowing who or what is coming across its borders. And while diversity and the enormous contributions of immigrants to our country cannot and should not be overlooked, that doesn’t mean we should accept illegal immigration. We have legal pathways. Practically speaking, there is an argument to be made for the need to get our house in order before opening it up more than necessary anyway; for example, we already have a shortfall of millions of units of housing in this country and we have a shortfall already between taxes raised and government expenditures of $2 trillion per year. Using the 14th, what was an early step in undoing the original sin of our country, to incent and reward people who come here illegally “devalues that citizenship,” as Justice Thomas said closing his dissent. The ‘now what’ of this case is challenging. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Congress can’t just write new law to undo birthright citizenship. It would take a Constitutional amendment. The now what is further complicated because if that amendment doesn’t come with some sort of exemption for those born here already, undoing birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants would create a whole class of people with no citizenship at all, opening the door to all the practical and systemic issues that would trigger. If we could only find our way to reasonable consensus that (1) the border is now closed to illegal immigration and must remain that way regardless of party in the White House, (2) we are passing a Constitutional amendment to remove birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and birth tourists entering the country after the date of ratification, (3) we will reengage in the world community to encourage the opportunity abroad that limits the attractiveness of migration, and (4) yes we are establishing some pathway for those here illegally who haven’t committed any crimes, not to reward them, but rather to bring them out of the shadows and into full compliance with and payment into our system. After all, a legal employee seeking preventative medical care under his employer’s health insurance plan is far less of a burden on taxpayers than an illegal immigrant seeking emergent care with no insurance. And besides, we as country, with all our technology and might, were complicit in their crime of entering illegally because we left the door open with a note saying come on in. West Virginia v. B.P.J. West Virginia v. B.P.J. (consolidated with Little v. Hecox), is a case that challenged state bans barring transgender females from playing on girl’s or women’s sports teams. B.P.J. is a student athlete, born male who identifies as female, who was seeking to play on a girls’ team. The Court unanimously agreed, 9-0, that West Virginia banning her from doing so did not violate Title IX (the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex in any education program and mandates schools provide male and female students with equal opportunity in sports). But where the justices were not unanimous in B.P.J. was on the issue of equal protection under the law. The three liberal justices would have sent that back down for further fact finding, particularly because in this case the petitioner had been taking puberty blockers since an early age, so arguably had never received the benefits that would provide an unfair advantage over or safety concern in competition with female athletes. The question posed by those justices is, would the government still have the resultant interest necessary to preclude someone similarly situated to a girl from a girls’ team? But even if the Court got this ruling correct based on the law, and even if it is right to protect in sports the safety of and fairness for those born female, is this decision where Congress, or we the people, should leave it? Can the answer really be we are going to exclude 3.3% of the minor population and growing from the life lessons of sport? Can the answer really be to tell someone who has taken puberty blockers, is transitioning, or has transitioned, to just go play with the boys and be in that locker room? What about their safety? The ‘now what’ questions on this issue are particularly important when speaking of facilities or teams funded by public tax dollars. Public dollars cannot exclude. And public dollars must think about how public buildings with shared facilities should be laid out moving forward. The Declaration of Independence announces to the world that all have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not just those we understand. And the Constitution promises all our citizens equal protection under the law. The pesky thing about promises is that they often require work to keep. Trump v. Slaughter Trump v. Slaughter overturned the longstanding Humphrey’s Executor decision. Humphrey’s essentially said that Congress had the ability within the Independent Federal Agencies it created under the Executive branch to limit the president’s ability to fire someone. In essence, the president would have to have cause to do so. He couldn’t just fire someone for strictly political reasons. Slaughter, by a margin of 6-3 along philosophical lines, overturned that, saying that with the exception of the Federal Reserve, the president may indeed fire someone without cause. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, may well have accomplished in one paragraph what ultimately took him 36 pages. The argument goes like this. The Constitution says the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To that end he should have the team he believes is necessary to accomplish that mandate. For the movie buffs among you, the argument is akin to the umbrage Jack Nicholson takes in A Few Good Men. “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said ‘thank you’ and went on your way.” Great speech aside, Jack’s character ended up in jail. Chief Roberts summed up the majority’s argument this way, “Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work.” And while I do enjoy a nice turn of phrase, this is another situation where what may be legally arguable may not be best for our country. It is true that there is no explicit mention in the Constitution of the president needing congressional approval to fire someone. There is some talk of it in the Federalist Papers. In fact, both the opinion of the court and the dissent refer to Federalist #77 where Hamilton says, “The consent of that body (the Senate) would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint.” But it won’t surprise you that there is disagreement between the opinion of the Court and the dissent as to whether ‘displace’ means to replace or to remove. There was also much debate in the early days post ratification of the Constitution as to whether congressional approval was necessary to remove an officer. It was never adequately solved then either. The Slaughter decision wasn’t a surprise; the conservative majority has been nipping at Humphrey’s heels for a while now. This is yet another example proving that the concept of Stare Decisis – the idea that the Court should give deference to its own precedents when deciding cases – doesn’t exist in the real world. It’s merely a cocktail party and senate confirmation hearing cliche that is so quick to be tossed on the chamber’s floor that it’s really quite embarrassing. In the interview with Justice Breyer that I mentioned earlier, he joked that the only decision of the Court that is safe from overturning is Marbury v. Madison…you know, the one where they gave to themselves the power of judicial review in the first place! Chief Roberts spends much time off the bench talking about and worrying about the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public. If he is truly concerned about that, perhaps he should give Stare Decisis a bit more attention, because he has presided over some fairly big reversals that do give the public the sense that the Court makes it up as they go based upon their political bent. As I say often in this space, Government done well should provide stability and predictability. And continuity is stability. The office of the president turning over every four years isn’t stability. A congressional seat turning over every two or a senate seat every six is not stability. Civil servants at work at agencies created by a Congress that then engages in oversight upon those agencies is stability. In this decision though, the majority in essence said that a president’s preference or caprice may be more important than continuity and predictability. But their carving out of the Federal Reserve loudly acknowledges that firings of whimsy can indeed create instability. The argument that an executive branch agency is under the purview of the president and the president may employ who he chooses, subject to Senate confirmation where mandated, makes complete sense on its face. But we are a system based on the healthy friction of checks and balances. Hence, Congress creates the agency. The Senate advises and consents on many officers of the executive branch. And Congress provides an oversight function. Why then cannot Congress preclude firing without cause in the agencies it created? Also keep in mind that the president already gets to decide which commissioner at each of these agencies he wants to act as the chair. And typically, the person replaced as chair then resigns as opposed to staying on. So practically speaking the president gets the chair and gets to nominate someone else to replace the outgoing chair. If you’re getting the sense that this case is more to do with one man stomping his feet and trying to get his way, well then, we’re on the same page. So back to the discussion of what is good for our country…does it necessarily follow that because a country voted in a president with 49.8% of the vote, based largely on wanting more affordability and slower social change, that that necessarily means we are dissatisfied with the course at the Environmental Protection Agency or Federal Trade Commission or Nuclear Regulatory Commission? It may, but it doesn’t say please give us instability by turnover. It doesn’t say erase institutional knowledge and give us a commissioner from amongst one of your dozens of private criminal attorneys to run an agency of the federal government. To be clear, though, some people are just really bad at their jobs. And those people can be fired for cause – “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” – even under Humphrey’s. If an Executive can’t find a for-cause reason, he isn’t trying hard enough. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission is a case in which Republicans including JD Vance argued that limiting the amount of money a political party can spend in coordination with one of its candidates violates the Constitutional right of free speech. I’ll ignore how dumb it is that Vice President JD Vance was considered to have legal standing for this case because he still has a campaign committee and a “Statement of Candidacy” on file indicating he intends to run for Senate in 2028. Anyway, he prevailed by a 6-3 decision, also along philosophical lines. This is another in a long line of cases, like Citizens United, that removes guardrails on money in politics. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh and makes about as much logical sense as his “I like beer, Senator” answers at his confirmation hearing. It goes a little something like this. Free speech may not be abridged. Money needed for speech. Money can’t be abridged. Therefore, parties may spend as much as they want. And so, for some reason, that means a party may coordinate with the candidate on that spending. Oh, and Stare Decisis again bad. The opinion of the Court is tortured and quickly casts aside any form of malfeasance from political spending other than a direct quid pro quo malfeasance. And it touts the current state of our technological abilities to look up and sort through the contributions and expenditures that must be reported to the FEC as some sort of panacea that would keep bad actors from acting badly, simply because citizens can look things up after the fact. And it places too high a regard on the existing individual contribution limits as a backstop. The well written and clear dissent by Justice Kagan, does a good job of laying out the gray that is money in politics, explaining how the political machine can do an end-around what rules are in place, essentially nullifying the intent of individual contribution limits. I will not regurgitate what she clearly lays out. But think about it this way, is it a limit any longer if Elon Musk can only give a candidate $3,500 per election yet he can give the party $1,000,000 with a wink that the party can then reroute this money to the candidate by forming a shared committee? Of course it isn’t. Even if the party gives the candidate $20 of that $1,000,000, Musk has given that candidate $3,520, which is above the legal limit. Kavanaugh quotes another case in support of the Court’s decision, saying the “concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” Agreed. But this decision enhances the speech of candidates that fall completely in line with their party while restricting the voices of those candidates who do not. But Kavanaugh dismisses this argument as not possible. Well Mr. Justice, I ran for office and I can tell you it is 100% possible. The real danger of this decision, and a point largely ignored is the coordination piece. The Court’s decision now allows a party to coordinate directly with the individual campaign to which it is giving. In other words, Candidate A, here is your $500,000 to support the ad you WILL be making to say you support this plank of our platform we want you to support. Isn’t that quid pro quo, Justice Kavanaugh? Where in that arrangement does one suspect our future representatives will be representing their constituents and their districts instead of their national party? Where in this scheme do we suppose a senator will have the moral courage to vote in a way that may benefit his district but aggrieve his party? Does one not believe that the party will choke off reelection funds? Of course they will. And so members of Congress will do the national party’s bidding 100% of the time. The majority’s opinion in these cases ignores the fact that by ostensibly increasing the money flow to some, it shuts out other candidates who don’t have access to those big dollars. Unlimited money for those who have it necessarily drowns out the speech of those who haven’t got it. But the majority only seems concerned with some speech. It ignores that money can buy so much speech for some that it robs others of theirs. This decision and the others that preceded it will rob us both of quality and quantity of candidates moving forward. And it serves to concentrate power in the hands of the few, the same problem the founders tried so desperately to avoid. And lastly, how does forbidding coordination between a party and a candidate in any way limit the freedom of either to say whatever they want? If the Court wants to leave the impression it isn’t political, it may be best for it not to aid and abet the party system. This is an abominable decision. It’s judicial activism and it’s wrong for the country. And it’s violative of our founder’s distrust of parties, or factions as they called them. We seem to have forgotten, whether it is in a president’s personal financial disclosure or in campaign finance regulation that the appearance of impropriety is impropriety. And guardrails once crashed into, shouldn’t be removed, they should be rebuilt to keep the next car out of the damn ditch. “But there we are and now we go on.”

Twenty-five years ago today, on a beautiful clear New Hampshire morning, I stood in the parking lot of the meat-packing plant where I worked as a junior cost accountant. A bomb threat had been called in that forced us to evacuate. So we gathered and talked, enjoying the sun on our faces and the reprieve from work, knowing as you inherently do in those moments that it’s all just a false alarm. Slowly, from a car radio or two we started to learn of the horror of 9/11. Our building was cleared to reenter just as the first tower fell. We were sent home. I watched on my living room television as the second tower fell and confusion swirled about other planes still in the air. Twenty-five years goes by in a blink. As I cast about today thinking about what to write, my mind went where it always does when I think about 9/11…first to the pain of the victims and their families, but then to the heroism of that day and the days that followed. There was heroism to be found in many places to be sure - crews that tried to fend off the attackers, first responders who went up staircases toward the fire, those stranded in the towers suppressing their own fears to help others, those who spent days digging for survivors, and countless smaller but not less meaningful acts that day and in the days that followed from ordinary people coming together in service to others. But ultimately, my mind always ends up going to Flight 93. Flight 93 was the one that crashed into the field in Shanksville, PA, after its passengers and crew, once discovering that other planes had hit the WTC and Pentagon, decided to try to take back their plane. And in so doing, they spared either the US Capitol or the White House, the two greatest physical symbols of our Republic. The accounts we have from that plane from the transmissions and phone calls made from it are harrowing…the sounds of violence and suffering victims, the last goodbyes, passengers reciting the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23 together, and the famous call to action “Let’s Roll.” Many of us talk a big game about what we would do when faced with a life-or-death moment. Would we stand tall or would we shrink? And the truth is we don’t know. But we do know the choice the passengers and crew of Flight 93 made. They knew the plane was headed to Washington, DC. They knew it was going to be used in a suicide attack. They took a vote. And they stood tall. And their brave actions, though sadly unable to save their own lives, saved untold others. And in the process, they saved the very symbols of our Union and our Liberty. Symbols matter. And to the Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville, today, the administration sent just the Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum. Remembering matters. And we remember all victims of 9/11 today. But perhaps, we can do two other things to honor the heroes of Flight 93. First, we can emulate them by coming together on the most pressing task before us without care for the other relatively small differences we may have. Second, we can stop casting votes for men and women on both sides of the aisle who’ve demonstrated by character, action, or inaction that they don’t deserve to be in the building those heroes saved. May God bless their memories and bring continued comfort to their loved ones today and every day.

Ryan Blaney wins the Quaker State 400 at EchoPark Speedway So today I procrastinate. Instead of polishing my blog on the Supreme Court, I started writing this piece about the lessons of sport. Perhaps it’s inspired by the World Cup, but I’m not a fan of soccer. I am, however, a huge fan both of PGA golf and of NASCAR auto racing. My week began watching the car race in Atlanta and ended watching Sunday’s thrilling finish at the British Open golf tournament. I’d like to talk about lessons from each. The NASCAR race began with a pre-race interview with the young, wildly controversial driver, Carson Hocevar. Hocevar is controversial because he’s reckless. He’s fast but too aggressive and too unapologetic about the consequences when it all goes wrong (read, he puts a lot of other people’s cars up onto wreckers). During the interview, he was being asked about those things by a couple former, accomplished NASCAR racers. They asked leading questions attempting to help Hocevar see the error in his ways and help him understand he’d have more success if he drove a bit more conservatively without alienating all his fellow drivers. They pressed, asking if he was concerned at all that alienating all the other drivers was going to cost him in the end. He gave an ill-advised and immature response, culminating with comments like “bring it on” and “I don’t know if anyone really wants to get into that war.” During the race another driver with all the talent in the world but who also lacks the results he should have, Bubba Wallace, was doing Bubba Wallace things. He has never gotten out of the car and had a microphone put to his face where he hasn’t talked about how someone somewhere has wronged him or kept him from succeeding. And this race was no different. Coming off a turn he entered too fast, Wallace had to lift out of the throttle causing his car to come down the race track directly into the path of his teammate, Ty Gibbs. Gibbs had nowhere to go and no time to react. The two cars made contact; Wallace spun out. But Atlanta is a long race and Wallace would eventually make his way back to the front. Ryan Blaney is one of the most popular drivers in NASCAR. He has come by that popularity because he is very good and very nice. He is well-liked by his fellow drivers because he races hard but clean, never taking risks that put other drivers in unnecessary danger. Full disclosure, I am a huge Blaney fan. I even watch the races with an earbud in one ear so that I can listen to his in-car radio at the same time. Yes, that big of a fan. Blaney had a superfast car for this race. He won the pole in qualifying. He won the first two stages of the race and was looking good to win the race itself. With 29 laps to go, Wallace was in first place with Blaney right behind him. Blaney went to the outside for a pass and Wallace blocked him late putting Blaney into the wall. This was the second incident Wallace caused in the race. Blaney’s contact with the wall was hard enough that his car picked up a huge vibration, concerning enough they weren’t sure if they could continue without coming into the pit for repairs. But being so close to the end of the race, they decided to risk it by staying out on track. With three laps to go in the race, the cocky young Hocevar was in first place, Blaney with his potentially damaged car was in second, and Wallace was in third. And as could only happen in the movies, the three cars came to the checkered flag three-wide, running side by side by side. Now in racing, cars running door to door slow each other down. To get an advantage to break out of that situation, a car needs “help” from behind, meaning that another car behind them in the field comes up and pushes them forward giving them just enough momentum to get past the cars beside them. The movie script continued. While there were three cars side by side for the lead, there were only two cars coming up from behind that could potentially help. Those two drivers would have to decide who to push and who to leave stranded. Coming up behind Wallace, in the inside lane, to try to push him for the win was his teammate, Gibbs. Yes, the same driver that Wallace cutoff earlier in the race causing him to spin. The other driver coming from behind, Christopher Bell, had a choice. Would he push the respected Ryan Blaney or would he push Carson Hocevar, the driver who has said “bring it on”? Blaney crossed the line first, winning the race because Bell chose to push him. Wallace came over the line second, pushed by Gibbs. Hocevar crossed the line fourth, pushed by no one. NASCAR officials would later strip Wallace of his second-place finish because he deliberately crossed below the out-of-bounds limit on the inside of the track to improve his position. Microphones were put in all three drivers faces after the race. Hocevar blamed the fact he wasn’t getting any help from behind on other factors, never considering his own behavior and comments may have come back on him. Wallace, right on brand, had a lot of blaming to dole out. First, he criticized his teammate for spinning him early in the race, failing to recognized his role in putting a teammate in a bad position where he couldn’t react. He then blamed NASCAR for interpreting their own rule wrong. For context, even Wallace’s boss and fellow driver, Denny Hamlin, later said the rule was enforced correctly. Wallace then circled back to blaming Gibbs for giving him the push, seeing it not as the push it was to try to help him win the race, but rather as the push that gained him the position that caused the penalty! That’s championship-level blame game. The winner, Ryan Blaney, was asked about being put into the wall by Wallace and the damage it caused. He had every chance to throw Wallace under the bus for a bad block. Instead Blaney said, “I tried to make a move and just got loose and hit the fence.” He took the blame instead of assigning it. Champion behavior. That is more NASCAR than most of you ever cared to hear about, so let me move on to golf for a second before ultimately getting to my point. This weekend’s British Open was thrilling spectacle…links golf, a dried-out surface where the ball rolls until it reaches trouble, deep pot bunkers, and 15 mile per hour winds. The headlines after Friday’s round should have been that Lucas Herbert, from Australia, shot a 62, tying the all-time men’s scoring record for a round in a major tournament. Instead, the headlines were all about American golfer, Bryson DeChambeau. On his 5th hole on Friday, DeChambeau hit his drive very far right into very tall fescue. He was fortunate that the ball was even found, that’s how far right it was and how long the grass was. There is a rule in golf that all golfers know and that all professional golfers have a responsibility to know. And that is to “play the course as you find it.” Specific to this situation, a golfer can’t do anything to improve the path of his intended swing. So for example, if there was a tree blocking a player’s backswing, he couldn’t cut down the tree. This also means, he can’t deliberately mat down grass behind the ball to make room for the club to swing back and through during the actual swing. But DeChambeau, a pro golfer of ten years who has been playing tournament golf for 23 years, walked into this patch of fescue stomping around as if he was making wine. He matted down every piece of grass behind his intended swing…several times…making it easier for him to ultimately swing the club. It was a clear rule violation. DeChambeau was told in scoring after his round that he would be assessed a 2-stroke penalty, putting him three shots behind the leader instead of just one. Officials from the R&A, the governing body for this tournament, took him back out to the spot of the infraction. There we were all able to witness the temper tantrum of a five-year old as DeChambeau pleaded his case, to no avail. But it didn’t stop there. DeChambeau said that because of the penalty, he was unsure if he would play the next day. He refused to speak to media. And he held the tournament hostage until the next morning over whether or not he would continue to play, and whether the R&A would have to adjust the tee times of most of the other golfers in the field as a result. And he kept volunteers at the course well into the night while he hit golf balls in the dark as he sulked. He sucked the air out of the room. And he did it because, as the golf writer Eamon Lynch would later say, “he exists in an echo chamber of his imaginary grievances.” DeChambeau did show up Saturday morning. He played an okay round of golf, finding himself four shots behind the leader. Things were seeming to return to normal. The headline after Saturday’s round should have been that two more golfer’s, Sam Burns from the United States and Ryan Fox from New Zealand, both equaled the scoring record, posting their own rounds of 62. But it wasn’t, because DeChambeau wasn’t done sucking the air out of the room. Instead, he went to the tournament offices demanding his scorecard from the previous day (to what end, we do not know). It was apparently a heated conversation and his request was denied. Either way, the story was not done. Either way, he had not accepted that his actions led to a penalty. Either way, he had not gotten on with it. But Ryan Fox would have the last say in this year’s British Open. He backed up that 62 with a perhaps more impressive 68 on the final day – more impressive because it was done from the final pairing with all the pressure of a major tournament on his shoulders. More impressive still, it was done in spite of the adversity he faced in that final round. On the 15th hole, the hardest hole at Royal Birkdale, Fox hit a near-perfect tee shot but got a very bad break. As can happen in links golf, a shot that is a yard from perfect can end up dead. And this shot ended up in a bunker, up against the back lip. He had no shot toward the green. He wasted no time. He didn’t complain. He stepped into the bunker and hit the ball backwards, away from the green. He then hit a perfect chip and putt, walking away with a really good bogey to lose just one shot to the leader. He would bounce back with birdie on the next hole to get that stroke back. Fox got to the 17th tee. He decided to play it safe, hitting an iron that couldn’t possibly reach the troublesome fairway bunkers. He hit it perfectly, right up the middle of the fairway. It landed and ran and ran and ran and ran, until it did actually reach one of those bunkers. He hit an iron, that at most usually travels 260 yards, 325 yards! He got up to the bunker to see another awful lie. He didn’t complain. He got on with it. There wasn’t enough room to stand in the bunker to hit it. Instead, he stood outside the bunker, crouched down low and hit the ball safely out. He would card a par on that hole and move on to the last tied with the leader. On the 18th tee, he turned to his caddie and declared he wasn’t going to play it safe. He was going to go for the win and own the results even if he messed it all up. He hit a perfect drive. He hit a perfect approach shot. And wasting absolutely no time at all, he stepped in with every part of him feeling as if it were shaking and made an 11-foot putt to win the British Open. Bryson DeChambeau shot over par on the last day finishing in 14th place. Even had the penalty not happened, he would have finished tied for sixth. But the interesting thing about it is that even after the penalty on Friday, he was still five strokes ahead of the eventual winner, Fox, at that point. Even with the penalty, he was still only 2 strokes behind Fox after Saturday, the same number of strokes Fox was behind the tournament leader at that point. But one golfer kept getting on with it. The other did not. Golfer, DeChambeau, and driver, Wallace, both had the responsibility to know the rules of their respective sports and to play within them or to suffer the consequences. Both either didn’t know the rules or deliberately chose to ignore them. And both put the blame for that on the governing body, instead of on themselves. The real problem with placing blame is that it prevents the self-reflection necessary to grow and to become better. Blaming someone or something is easy. Stepping into the bunker and hitting it backwards is difficult. Driving a car with a bad vibration over the finish line is difficult. And the same is true in life and even in politics, my normal subject matter. It is easy, for example, for those on the MAGA right to say illegal immigrants are responsible for all our woes. It is easy for those on the progressive left to say that capitalism is responsible for all our woes. But the answers are never that simple and we, as country, need more self-reflection and less blaming. I can’t say for sure whether the right attitude can truly change an outcome, though I have a hunch. But what I do know is that the proper attitude, regardless of outcome, can change how you feel both about yourself and life in general. Anyway, and as always, I preach what I need to practice.

This nation didn’t begin by winning a war. That would come. It didn’t begin with writing our Constitution. That too would come. No, after a slow simmer turned to a boil by a king holding on too tightly and some Common Sense, it began by announcing to the world in the Declaration of Independence who we are, what we believe, and, in large measure, what we will not tolerate. And that is what we celebrate this week. The document begins simply, with the words “In Congress.” Not from Congress or by order of Congress. But rather, in Congress…in the act of coming together. Coming together is what I think about as I wish America – this great, beautiful, complicated, fallible, imperfect nation – a happy 250th. I’m blessed to call her home, knowing that just by virtue of being born here I landed on second base without ever having hit a double. The Declaration makes a bold and brash statement. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” The fact it was written by the hand of a slave owner, and that almost three quarters of its signers had owned slaves, is all the evidence one ever needs that America was an idea and that the union would ever be in need of perfecting. That idea of America – our mission statement that is the Declaration – has always outpaced our reality. We must continue to close that gap, just as we did with the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the Constitution that removed the original sin of our founding and brought us legally, if not in everyone’s hearts and minds, to a place where all men (read human beings) are indeed equal. An idea that big and the subsequent form of government chosen by the founders that has lasted this long are not the things of lightweights or empty suits. They are not conceived by choosing leaders with whom you’d like to have a beer, nor should they be entrusted to leaders one believes will blow the whole thing up. Instead, they’re the ideas of the smartest, most well-read, capable people. And yes I do understand and lament that in the case of our founding, many of these men came by that capacity because of the free time afforded them by the shackled labor of others. It is great irony that a system of government that has so benefited the world and the cause of liberty was largely created behind closed doors and shuttered windows by flawed men who turned infringement upon their own liberty into an exercise in public virtue. Imagine an attempt today under the ever-watching eyes of CNN or the incessant, instantaneous reaction of keyboard warriors. From behind those closed doors, our founders would emerge with a system of government…decidedly not a Democracy but rather a Republic…that would better protect the rights of the minority from the enflamed will of the majority. Slave owners choosing a system of government that better protects the minority, “divine Providence” indeed. The grievance section of the Declaration, listing 27 grievances against the Crown, speaks directly to many of the guardrails placed into our Constitution. But the section famously ends with the words, “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” This was both accusation and admonition. The document ends with my favorite words, the ones I think of when I think about who we are and what we’re celebrating. “We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” To each other. Modern America spends too much time talking about our rights and not enough talking about our responsibilities. Those 25,000 troops that died in the Revolution – some from combat, but most from disease and starvation – also had a right to life. That 18-year-old on the beaches of Normandy also had a right to life. But they gave theirs for us. I wonder what they would have given to have lived a long, full life? Would they suffer the “sacrifice” of showing an ID at a polling place or limiting the rounds in their gun magazine or wearing a mask in a grocery store simply because a neighbor feared an illness more than they did? In the long list of grievances against the Crown, nowhere did our founders list “I was forced to care for my neighbors or listen to their perspective.” Perhaps that is what we should reflect upon most during this celebration...the fact our grievances are by comparison so small that we have time to exaggerate the ones we have. May God continue to bless America and once again bring us leaders worthy of guiding her. Here’s to the next 250 years!

The Reflecting Pool on the National Mall being repainted. “And truth is like a punch or two. It hits you hard; it knocks you through.” These are words from a song I like by Tired Pony called “Get on the Road.” It’s a song about traveling, physically or emotionally, toward your great love. But for me there’s always been this yearning in it not toward a romantic love but rather toward one’s life destiny. My grandmother also used a road reference to talk about life. She would paraphrase the old Irish proverb, “It’s a long road that has no turning”. I think it’s supposed to mean good things happen in life and bad things happen. Neither is permanent, but you keep moving forward. So if you’ll permit me a moment of self-indulgent reflection, I have always struggled with the pull of something bigger, with a feeling I should be doing more, achieving better. I’m not sure if that is character flaw or simply a healthy motivation to succeed. Perhaps it's some combination of the two. But I do know it creates tension in me, and in my life. The truth that hit me hard this week, and will knock me through for some time, is that though I wanted to run for office again this cycle, there is no path forward for me to do so. It isn’t for the lack of the wanting. It isn’t for the lack of work ethic or lack of a sense I can contribute positively in these hectic times. It’s simply and discouragingly for lack of fundraising ability, the thing that stops all too many candidates, particularly those of us more moderate in our beliefs or in our approach. The money is with the national parties and at the extremes, and so there too you will find many of your candidates for federal office. And you will find them hard at work at their national party’s narrative, instead of seeking to work for you. I sat with all of that this week against the confusing backdrop of our national disconnect. On the one hand we have a war, hopefully now concluding. We have an ally in Israel that needs to find restraint. We have inflation over 4% again. We have credit card delinquencies at the highest level in 15 years, not because people bought jet skis but rather because they bought food, medicine, and gas. Lessor nations can now hold off greater ones with cheaply made drones. AI marches on while its regulation stands still. And our nation’s debt continues its climb toward $40 trillion dollars, or to put it in popular culture terms…40 Elon Musks. Musk now has more wealth than 175 nations have GDP. He can theoretically control through Starlink who can communicate during times of war and through SpaceX who has access to space. Here’s the confusing part, the disconnect. These weren’t the political topics people spoke to me about this week. No instead, on the golf course I heard about progressives in New York passing a bill to replace the words “mother” and “father” in court rooms with “gestating” and “non-gestating parent.” In a coffee shop I heard a congressional candidate tell me one of the main reasons for running was to “keep men out of women’s sports.” At a bar, a woman told me that a transgender person walking into the hair salon she was at earlier in the day “disgusted” her. And then of course a UFC fighter, at the event inexplicably and inexcusably held on the White House lawn, said in his victory speech, “And lastly, Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?” We seem to be obsessed with gender…other people’s. We seem to believe someone else’s family looking different somehow diminishes our own. We seem to think free speech is somehow best protected by using disgusting or fallacious speech. As I reflected more on this disconnect, I heard even more distraction…the repainting of the reflecting pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and the algae bloom exacerbated by the darker color paint. And then we heard more about the President’s physical exam as if it should surprise us that a man of 80 years holding the most stressful job on the planet who mainlines Diet Coke may have health concerns. But what was the focus of the reporting – curiosity as to whether the President discontinued use of his hair growth prescription. Distraction, distraction, distraction. And so as any good distracted American would do, I shifted my focus to golf’s U.S. Open, currently being held at the amazing Shinnecock Hills. The players will have to deal with a golf course that Rory McIlroy called “the best championship test in the country.” They will have to deal with wind gusts of up to 30 mph. They will deal with championship pressure. They will deal with boisterous fans. They will deal with many moments of angst. And they will try desperately to focus on what they can control…the next shot. A great sports psychologist I know named Bhrett McCabe, who works with several PGA players, speaks about the funnel of mental focus. At the top of the funnel, where it is widest, a player is aware of everything around him, including all the distractions and perhaps other important things that just may not be as pressing in the moment. As the funnel narrows the player’s focus must begin to also narrow, casting aside those distractions as he begins to build a strategy for the next shot. As it narrows further, he begins to visualize the outcome he wants for that shot. And then at the small tip of the funnel, when everything else has been set aside, he executes the shot. Finally, the golf ball now in flight, he accepts the results regardless of the outcome. In our national lives, our funnel is upside down. Our awareness is tunnel vision to what we are told to care about or what our party leader tells us or what our faith tradition tells us or the condition of our wallets. And our execution is attempted at the wide end of the funnel where everything is cluttered and no distractions are removed. And we certainly don’t ever move forward accepting the result. We have so many giant issues, yet we and our leaders and those running for office seem to have forgotten that politics is the art of the possible and public policy is the necessity to triage. Much like a doctor treats a heart attack before a broken arm, a good politician knows that because political capital is not limitless, it must be used for the most pressing thing first. But we are not triaging very well at all. We are distracted and distracting. And that distraction saps unity that could well be used on the larger issues. War kills. Inflation kills. Lack of medical care kills. Someone you don’t care for coming into your hair salon is something to be forgotten about by lunchtime. I don’t deny that we can walk and chew gum. I don’t deny social issues are important. But we are letting ourselves become so divided on the social things, on the cultural things, that there is no ability to succeed on anything. The ironic thing is that the social issues should be the easiest to solve. Our country’s mission statement, the Declaration of Independence, teaches us that all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – all of us, not just those you understand or with whom you agree. Our governing document, the Constitution, guarantees all equal protection under the law. In other words, teach what you want in your church. Teach what you want at your kitchen table. If you think you’re right, live that way, model it. But unless your social belief is also an issue of public safety or of ensuring equal protection, keep it the heck out of the halls of government. And if it is to be kept out of the halls of government, then for the love of all that it is holy and decent and kind, keep it out of political campaigns and political fundraising so that we have half a shot of getting pragmatic, effective leaders into office. I’m convinced that we will return to a place where those with moderate approaches, reasoned thinking, and loyalty to all constituents instead of to party will once again be tapped for office. I’m convinced that we will return to a place where those too progressive and those too closed-minded will both be shown the bench, allowing us to achieve reasoned, predictable, and sustainable progress. But for now, I’m going to shake off the punches and watch some golf.

I love words used well. And so I tend to spend an embarrassing amount of time polishing my posts to ensure I use the words just right. The result is that some things I write are never posted or are put aside to revisit when time permits. This Memorial Day, I sat polishing up a blog on insurance. But that wasn’t worthy of the day, so I set it aside to reflect on the sacrifices of those who died in service to our country, and whether our current leaders are honoring that sacrifice or squandering it. I’m not sure that my attempt to describe the sacrifice of the service members who have died for us, or what that sacrifice means to me, would ever be sufficient. I think of President Lincoln, a great orator and a greater mind, feeling that his attempt to do so would be little noted nor long remembered. But he was him, and his words have been long remembered. Words matter. They can create a momentum in either direction, for good or for bad. They can bolster or tear down. And if repeated enough, even when false, they can become true…if we let them. But of the many things we owe those brave men and women in return for their sacrifice is an obligation to call out falsehoods and to identify in our leaders where they fall short, if for no other reason than because it is those same leaders who will send the next of our men and women into harm’s way. In November, 1775, Abigail Adams sent a letter to her husband, John. She was ill and the weather was terrible, but she found these words. “I am more and more convinced that man is a dangerous creature, and that power whether vested in many or a few is ever grasping, and like the grave cries give, give. The great fish swallow up the small, and he who is the most strenuous for the rights of the people, when vested with power, is as eager after the prerogatives of government. You tell me of degrees of perfection to which humane nature is capable of arriving, and I believe it, but at the same time lament that our admiration should arise from the scarcity of the instances.” Such great poetry, that pointed condemnation of the ambition of man. John Adams was no less concerned on the topic. In a letter to Mercy Warren a few months later, he said in regards which form of government would be most appropriate for our nation that a republic “will produce strength, hardiness, activity, courage, fortitude, and enterprise…but there is so much rascality, so much venality and corruption, so much avarice and ambition, such a rage for profit and commerce among all ranks and degrees of men, even in America, that I sometimes doubt whether there is public virtue enough to support a republic.” I was reminded of both those quotes recently while watching Ken Burns’ series, The American Revolution. It is my go-to, of late, while flying. On a recent trip, I spent a considerable amount of time looking out the window at the cloudscape after the episode I was watching reminded me about the inconvenient truth that George Washington fought a revolution for liberty while being attended by his valet, a young slave named William Lee. Our leaders have always been flawed, complicated men. But the best of them found a public virtue that outpaced their private shortcomings. Sometimes it was a change of heart and sometimes it was circumstantial expediency. And often, whether by the weight of the office or the force of divine intervention, we got to the right place. George Washington profited all his life from slave labor. He released those slaves…eventually, but not while his or his wife’s lifestyle depended upon them. In his will, a fascinating document written in his own hand, Washington freed William Lee (“my Mulatto man William”) and indicated the rest should be freed upon Martha’s death. He expressed regret that he could not do so sooner, and his will provided for the care of the elderly and infirmed slaves upon their eventual release and care and education of the young slaves upon theirs. But Washington was also the man that showed us what the presidency should be and, perhaps more importantly, left the presidency, cementing that we were indeed a Republic rather than a monarchy in different form. Abraham Lincoln said in a debate, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” But as president, Lincoln was the man that saved the Union, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and lobbied for the passage of the 13th Amendment that ended the evil institution of slavery. Lyndon Johnson was no profile in courage on the issue of race as he made his way up the political ladder. He chose advancement over that fight, often changing his tune for different audiences. Privately, even as president, he used racist language, including in conversations about nominating Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. If we had a measuring stick for complicated, he might have topped the charts among presidents as one of the most complicated men in the club. But it was he that fought tirelessly for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968. Despite these flawed leaders, often a reflection of the environment in which they lived, we have found our way forward and the arc has indeed bent toward justice. So what of today and whether our leaders, in all they do, remember that they are stewards of this nation built upon the sacrifice not just of its soldiers and citizens, but also of those brought here in chains. Through word and action are they building upon the foundation or instead looking for cracks in which to drive wedges? What does it do to a nation when the Democrat House Minority Leader calls the Supreme Court illegitimate. What does it do to a nation when the Republican President steals another $1.8 billion dollars in taxpayer money, this time to set up a fund for every Mike-Lindell-type miscreant under the sun, and then has his Justice Department agree to direct that the IRS can never audit his or his sons’ tax returns. What does it do to a nation when two national parties cut up the various states into darker blue or darker red districts. What does it do to a nation when reasonable centrists are primaried out of office for the unpardonable sin of pissing off their party leaders. What does it do to a nation when sleight of hand becomes the tool not of the magician but rather of the politician. What does it do to a people when that sleight of hand robs trillions of their tax dollars while they struggle to pay their own bills. I didn’t use question marks in that last paragraph as those aren’t questions. They are statements because we inherently know what the result will be. When grift on the left is replaced by grift on the right, it is still grift. The perp may have changed but the victim is still the same...the taxpayer. So I ask you, then, what happens when our leaders no longer even attempt to tamp down their private shortcomings? Do we have any chance of them finding public virtue or inspiring us to find ours? Worse still, what happens when instead they flaunt their private shortcomings and lean into them in their public “service”? John Adams, in that same letter to Mercy Warren, wrote, “it is the part of a great politician to make the character of his people; to extinguish among them the follies and vices that he sees, and to create in them the virtues and abilities which he sees wanting.” Now perhaps this sentiment is overly paternalistic. Perhaps a people find virtue from a source other than from another man, but surely none would argue that behavior in our country has become more virtuous over the last decade. There is a chicken and the egg debate to be had, for sure, as to whether bad leaders brought us bad civic behavior or whether bad civic behavior landed us with bad leaders. Either way, a leader’s public virtue matters. Adams ended his sentiment with this fear, “I wish I was sure that America has one such politician, but I fear she has not.” As I continue to think about Memorial Day, I remember another blog I wrote just over a year ago but never posted. It was about four American soldiers who perished in Lithuania when their armored tow vehicle sank into a bog during the early morning hours. It made headlines, then, not just because of their tragic loss or the days it took to locate them, but also because President Trump did not attend the dignified transfer of their remains. Rather, he hosted a LIV golf event at one of his clubs. In stark contrast, the people of Lithuania turned out in the thousands to honor our fallen as their remains began the journey home to America. Those thousands were accompanied by Lithuania’s president, Gitanas Nausėda. Lithuanian soldiers carried small US flags. An archbishop blessed the hearses. A lone bugler played Taps. Church bells rang. Tears were shed by ordinary citizens who never knew these four Americans. A Lithuanian military officer embraced a United States military officer. And President Nausėda said to all those gathered, “For us, it is more than a duty, it is an emotion. We have experienced trials in our history and therefore we understand well what loss is, what death is, what honorable duty is.” It is worth noting that the people of Lithuania did this for our heroes on the same day we announced tariffs on their country. Honorable duty…we could use some of that from our leaders right about now. May God rest the souls of all those who, for us, “gave the last full measure of devotion.”

The annual White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) Dinner is an event I always look forward to watching. Since 1983, around the time I began watching, the entertainer for the event has been a comedian. And laughter is good medicine. We seem to have lost a bit of the ability to make fun of ourselves. We take ourselves and most situations far too seriously. And that’s a shame, because the ability to laugh at oneself is a sign both of good character and good temperament. And perhaps because good character and good temperament are important things in a leader, I liked when the President of the United States, the most powerful person on the planet, voluntarily arrived at the dinner to be roasted by a comedian and to do some roasting in return. What better way to show the greatness of America. In America, after someone mocks his leader, he doesn’t go to jail. He goes home thinking, “Well that was fun.” To be sure, some moments from dinners past went too far and some comedians missed the mark. Some presidents had better comedic instinct than others and some presidential writers were more skilled than others. And the WHCA is not without its own faults. Not unlike much of society, the dinner excluded people of color until the 1950’s and female correspondents until 1962. It took a proposed presidential boycott by President Kennedy to change the latter. Kennedy did this at Helen Thomas’ request. Yes, that Helen Thomas – the correspondent who reported from the White House for almost 50 years, from early in the Kennedy administration to halfway through President Obama’s first term. Her career ended in controversy over comments she made about Israel, but there was much to like about her. She was Lebanese, which I am on my mother’s side, so that typically starts someone off pretty high in my book. She was an institution in the good way, something that grounds us to the past and binds us through inevitable change. The person at the podium may have changed, but the reporter dead center in the front row asking the first question did not. Policy may have shifted but who we were as a country did not. She asked tough questions of leaders, as a journalist should. But at the end of the briefing, whether to a Republican or a Democrat, she said the simple words, “Thank you, Mr. President.” A small gesture of civility and a sign of respect for the institution itself. People have criticized the WHCA dinner because they argue it shows a too-cozy relationship between Washington media and elected officials, as if the ability to compartmentalize for a night is beyond the reach of reporters or politicians or that a night of socialization is hurtful rather than helpful. Like our ability to laugh at ourselves, we also seem to have lost the ability to compartmentalize. There is value in that skill. It allows people who disagree on some things to work together on others. It should be the primary tool in the toolkit of an elected official. Washington should have more socialization between those of different backgrounds and beliefs, not less. I disliked the fact that President Trump never attended one of these dinners as President. After all, every president since Calvin Coolidge in 1924 had attended at least one. President Reagan even called in to the first WHCA dinner of his presidency while recovering at Camp David from his attempted assassination. And so, I was gratified to learn that President Trump was attending this year. I do find it telling, though, that the first one he decided to attend was the first one of his two presidencies that the entertainer was not a comedian. Telling, though not surprising. One need only watch his reactions when he attended the dinner as a private citizen and became the target of then President Obama’s jokes to understand President Trump prefers to give rather than to take. And he was all too well prepared to give this past Saturday night, telling Norah O’Donnell of 60 Minutes, “I was gonna hit people really hard, with humor…really hard with humor.” It appears he was prepared to roast, just not to be roasted. But the biggest reason I like the WHCA dinner and believe that the sitting president should attend is because of how presidents typically end their remarks. After the jokes end, the tone grows serious and the volume softens. And the ceremonial head of our Republic usually spends a few minutes talking about the importance of a free press, the ideals of America, or our shared responsibilities to freedom. And he often ends with some form of, “Thank you for inviting me.” You know, a small gesture of civility and a sign of respect to the institution itself. This past Saturday night, instead of those that represent the fourth estate and the man who is in himself Article II of the Constitution coming together to share humor and a meal, a shooter attempted to run past a security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton with a pump-action shotgun, a handgun, and multiple knives. Once again the American people saw the President taken to the ground by brave Secret Service agents. Once again we saw the awkward scrum of agents rushing him from a place. And we watched those left behind dirtying their tuxedos and evening gowns by hiding under tables. Thankfully no one was injured, save the agent whose vest saved his life. Thankfully this shooter was never going to succeed. He had the wrong weapons and a bad plan, and I thank God for that. He was no match for the bravery and reaction time of the law enforcement agents at the scene. May we always be that fortunate. Though, unfortunately, the taxpayer expense to provide that good fortune will continue to increase exponentially. That future expense was increased further Saturday night by the media’s reporting of the event. Yes, their job is to keep us informed. But is it in the aftermath of the attack to show us floor plans of a venue used each year for this event, show us footage of which law enforcement or national guard units came in when and from where after the attack, or to show the confusion that necessarily accompanies post-attack action. Showing us all this also shows would-be bad guys all this. And it makes the President and anyone around him less safe in the process by showing how a future attacker might be able to capitalize on that chaos. I want to take a moment to compliment President Trump. In these moments his instincts, which he touts as perfect in all things, are actually spot on. In these moments he seems to cast aside what would be an understandable internal fear and realizes that he is the office. He is the symbol of America. In these moments, whether now as the sitting president or then as a former president campaigning to regain the office, he realized the importance of getting up. In these moments he realized the importance of getting to a microphone to reassure the American people. In these moments he recognized how important it is to continue on, and if continuing on in that moment isn’t possible, then to regather in that same place as soon as practicable to symbolically reclaim that space from the attacker. And to his credit, though I disagree with much of his policy substance and all of his political style, he continues on doing his job. There is guts and bravery and audacity in that…something very American. But the President should realize that in all moments he is the office. In all moments he is the symbol of our country. In all moments, how he comports himself matters and has repercussions. It is impossible to represent all Americans when he openly expresses hatred for some. It is impossible to “preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States” while spending his days trying to figure out how to circumvent it to achieve his ends. He is also his office when in that same 60 Minutes interview, he said to Norah O’Donnell, “you’re horrible people” and “you’re a disgrace.” To be sure, O’Donnell’s reading from an attacker’s manifesto, particularly its most salacious line, and then her feigning as if she didn’t know it would appear the line was referring to the President, was improper at best. We used to not give manifesto writers the airtime. But how a President responds, even to a question like that, matters. And calling media members (who are also his constituents) “horrible people” probably isn’t what we need in a bring-us-together moment. My criticism isn’t reserved just for the President. As can only happen in the times we are now in, we spent the week in a great debate as to whether or not the President was the intended target or whether or not it was the would-be assassin that fired the bullet that struck the agent. Of course the President was the target; if a waiter or a news anchor or the Undersecretary of Something was the intended target, the assailant probably wouldn’t have chosen to make his job harder by choosing a time and a place where the President of the United States was in attendance with the entire security apparatus that accompanies him. And it doesn’t matter who fired the bullet that hit the agent because that bullet was fired as a direct result of the would-be assassin charging the security checkpoint. Fault for anything happening after that point lies with him, and he should be charged accordingly. And right on cue, we have the conspiracy theories…the President arranged this attempt and all the attempts on his life to change the subject or make him look brave or to tie the left to political violence or to justify his White House ballroom plans. And right on cue, the right has forgotten the left has suffered its own political violence and the left has forgotten that they too use language that is beyond the pale. All forget that minds not properly grounded can easily be incited to political violence by careless, oft-repeated words. And both sides, while stirring the pot, fail to find consensus to get enough money into mental illness or come up with sensible gun regulation. But the biggest crime of the week is that our leaders continue to fail the American people by representing their party instead of their constituents. Many Republican Senators and Representatives have since the shooting been busy parroting the need for a ballroom at a $400 million price tag. Democrats caused a 76 day partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in protest of overzealous immigration enforcement. I agree enforcement was overzealous but how effective is the Democrats’ tactic when one considers the agencies within DHS they were seeking to change were the only parts of DHS that already had the funding they needed. But sure, let’s have TSA agents continue to work stressed out about when their checks will stop…again. But Republicans are to blame for at least the last 30 days of the shutdown; Speaker Mike Johnson, who will go down in history as a lapdog instead of a leader, took 30 days to finally pass this week the Senate-approved measure to fund DHS. Today the war with Iran reached the 60 day mark. Legally that requires Congress to either pass a resolution authorizing the war or hostilities must end. They did not pass such a resolution. To be determined what next week will bring. But if Congressional Republicans do not start reigning in President Trump, it will be their fault not his that we Republicans lose the majority in 2026. And no amount of governors like Ron DeSantis, looking to secure their next job by forcing through congressional redistricting maps, will stop that. Anyway, back to complimenting President Trump while I finally have an opportunity to so do. In closing his interview with Norah O’Donnell, he said in reference to rescheduling the WHCA dinner, “I hope were going to do it again. Norah, tell them to get it going…I think it’s very important that they do it again.” He’s right.

We talk often of the dangers of poor public policy decisions or political divisiveness. But today I want to talk about another danger. And that is the danger of being “bad tired.” Bad tired is an idea I first heard decades ago on an old cassette tape while driving to high school. On it, Harry Chapin, the late great singer-songwriter, told this story. “My grandfather was painter. He died at age 88. He illustrated Robert Frost’s first two books of poetry. And he was looking at me and he said, Harry, there’s two kinds of tired. There’s good tired and there’s bad tired. He said ironically enough bad tired can be a day that you won. But you won other people’s battles. You lived other people’s days, other people’s agendas, other people’s dreams. And when it was all over, there was very little you in there. And when you hit the hay at night somehow you toss and turn. You don’t settle easy. He said, good tired ironically enough, can be a day that you lost. But you don’t even have to tell yourself because you knew you fought your battles, you chased your dreams, you lived your days, and when you hit the hay at night you settle easy. You sleep the sleep of the just. And you can say ‘take me away’. He said Harry, all my life I’ve wanted to be a painter. And I painted. God, I would’ve loved to have been more successful. But I painted. And I painted. And I am good tired, and they can take me away.” Many of us are currently bad tired, and many things have us living other people’s days. Sure, there is the normal pull of life – needing to earn a living or the responsibility of raising a family. But then we layered in the constant drumbeat of 24/7 news, social media with endless scrolls, and the sheer barrage of inputs that hit us every moment of every day. It feels like day three of a trip to Las Vegas when the excitement has long since given way to the sheer mental slogging that is the constant sound of slot machines. One looks forward to the relative quiet of the airplane ride home. I think we as a nation long for quiet. And while I typically admire success rather than begrudge it, part of the bad tired, frankly, is seeing success find those that karma or a God or a just universe wouldn’t necessarily seek out to reward. Influencers lying around by a pool making hundreds of thousands while someone in medical school racks up hundreds of thousands in debt. Insiders cashing in on $400,000 bets on prediction markets while others eat the missiles that made the payday possible. Loud-mouth miscreants podcasting their ways into mansions. The founder of the biggest personal injury law firm in the country thinking it’s okay to have billboards depicting him on a private plane or on the beach while seeking to represent those who are suffering…or not. A president suing the very agencies he oversees for billions as if somehow he thinks that money would come not from the pockets of the American people he represents, but rather from the other political party. A president’s son-in-law replacing a Secretary of State and conveniently securing billions for his own business while negotiating on “our” behalf. It seems more than ever, hard work isn’t the answer. Shortcuts are. It seems truth is irrelevant. It seems now is the time for narcissism and a psychopathic level of non-caring. Now is the time for getting ahead by stepping upon. I’d like to imagine all these folks will feel a bit bad tired at some point too. Living that way, succeeding that way, has to take a toll. Doesn’t it? And I’d like to think that while karma is most certainly a procrastinator, she will eventually buckle down and do her job. Speaking of jobs, what one does for a living matters. The closer that occupation comes to also being a person’s passion, like with Harry’s grandfather the painter, the less bad tired one will be. The Desiderata, written by Max Ehrmann, is my favorite prose poem. Though written in 1927 everything on it still holds true. But one line is about to not hold true. That is this one, “Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it’s a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.” Max didn’t know AI was going to come for all our careers. That is a legitimate fear. And fear is tiring. Beyond all this, our good tired is being deliberately denied and our bad tired deliberately exacerbated by those who lie to fire us up to their way of thinking, engage in hyperbole that raises our anxiety levels, and divide us to serve their specific end. But their means, beyond depleting our energies, risk blowing the whole damn thing up. There is a great scene in the race car driving movie, Days of Thunder. A grizzled crew chief played by Robert Duvall says to his driver played by Tom Cruise, “You pegged the engine in Atlanta. Redlined the son ‘a bitch and blew it sky high. Done it deliberate…done it deliberate. 9,400 RPMs according to the little telltale button.” Many of our leaders are redlining our world, and just like an engine has a breaking point so too does the fragile world order. And make no mistake, they done it deliberate. You can’t always tell who is operating in our best interest and who isn’t. Public policy is complicated, and all news sources have a bent. Often the easiest way to decide to whom to give the benefit of the doubt, and to whom not, is to look at with whom that person surrounds himself. That’s why my parents would caution us when we were young about never being guilty by association. I wouldn’t want to be associated with Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, or Kristi Noem to name just a few. So who is our administration’s idea of a friend? Recently, Vice President JD Vance traveled at our taxpayer expense to Hungary to campaign for Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Orban is an autocrat who has weakened the judiciary, clamped down on free press, gone after academia, rails against the dilutive dangers of immigration, and leans away from alliance with his fellow EU countries. He supports Vladimir Putin, not Ukraine, and his administration has been accused of wide-spread corruption financially benefiting his allies. Does any of that playbook sound familiar? There is only one thing it seems the Trump administration hasn’t learned from Viktor Orban. And that is when Orban was defeated last week, he accepted the election results even though he didn’t like them. I think there is an even better way to judge a person than by who his friends are. You can learn even more about him by who his enemies or critics are. I’m hearing in this moment the song lyric from U2’s Cedars of Lebanon, “Choose your enemies carefully ‘cause they will define you Make them interesting ‘cause in some ways they will mind you They're not there in the beginning but when your story ends Gonna last with you longer than your friends.”   So who is our administration’s idea of an enemy? Well, this past week it was the Pope. And not just a pope, but the first one from America. President Trump went after Pope Leo in a post that would make you believe he had to run against him in 2028. Leo is “WEAK on crime.” Leo thinks it’s “OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon!” President Trump then went on to take credit for Leo being selected Pope, saying Leo “should be thankful.” And then for the chef’s kiss, the President again claimed he himself was elected “IN A LANDSLIDE.” His capital letters. Fact checking this president is a career, and one I don’t want, but it is healthy to remember that 50.2% of Americans voted for someone else. And his delusional belief to the contrary enables reckless and lopsided decision making. Some would say the Pope-post isn’t a big deal. Okay, then what of the President’s Easter Sunday post that threatened attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iran, saying innocent civilians would be “living in Hell.” The post ended with a signoff that mocked an entire people’s religion. That’s a president tanking our credibility, ceding our moral high ground, and compromising our future safety by both normalizing civilian attack and further inflaming those who would engage in Islamic extremism. Or how about the President’s post last Sunday, now seemingly deleted, depicting himself as a Christ-like figure? Properly questioned about this post, the President claimed he thought the image portrayed him as a doctor. My bad, I guess it's okay to claim to be something you never went to school for or were certified to be. At best he cannot be taken seriously and at worst it demonstrates an incapacity to discharge the duties of his office. Lack of credibility is incapacity. Some on the right, including the President, are quick to identify Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) or a lack of sense of humor. I’ve spoken in this space before about how much I dislike someone bemoaning a circumstance without recognizing the role he may have played in creating that circumstance. Perhaps TDS would more aptly be described as fatigue at the unnecessary. And lack of a sense of humor more aptly a recognition that the most powerful man in the world has an obligation toward solemnity. A friend said to me recently that she no longer watches the news. She has disengaged from it to save her energy for the things she can control. Understandable, it’s her way to get back to being good tired. But what if we all disengage while those who stay engaged deliberately redline America’s engines? What then? Engagement has to be the answer. And it has to be an engagement that doesn’t buy into dangerous hyperbole, condemns behavior beneath an office, chooses great character over manageable policy differences, and gives more grace to one’s own neighbors than to a politician one knows just from television. This nation should not be defined by a President Donald Trump on the one side or a Senator Adam Schiff on the other. Both are tiring in the bad way. And at some point, degrees of difference don’t matter. Tiring is tiring. It is time for us to find good tired again. A day not encroached upon by our leaders. A day well lived, even if not successful. A day more about the process than the outcome. A cavalcade of these days that, when strung together into a life, may allow one to rightly say, “I am good tired and they can take me away.” I can’t speak to what gets you to that feeling personally. But nationally, I believe it begins by us choosing leaders of character and refusing to regurgitate the things said by those who lack it.

Foreign policy is an interesting thing, though perhaps not as complicated a thing as we make it seem. It is, at its core, the practice of human relationship. And most of that is learned in kindergarten…you know, when you first ventured out into the world to learn the unfortunate truth that it isn’t all about you.   I began to write this post before the missiles and drones began to fly in Iran. I started to sketch it out after listening to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at Davos in January. It was an interesting perspective from the ‘middle market’ of countries. It was particularly interesting juxtaposed with some of the February speeches from U.S. leaders that seemed very comfortable both with espousing a Christian worldview and looking back with a weird longing at what others may view as colonialism. I seem to remember our founders instead threw off the yoke of colonialism and deliberately chose no national religion.   This isn’t my longest post. That title went to my post on guns . But this one isn’t short, I realize. I guess safety just gets me going. So apologies that this one is more of a read at the DMV than a read in line at the grocery store.   Before diving more broadly into my thoughts on foreign policy, let me first speak to the current war in Iran. First and foremost, my prayers continue to be with our brave service men and women. They are experts at what they do and come by that expertise through dedication and tireless training. The civilian leaders that place them in harm’s way should use the same level of care and preparation before putting them there, never assuming for themselves an ego inflated by the impressiveness of that military. Letting someone else’s sacrifice give you swagger comes awfully close to stealing valor.   My prayers are also with the families of those brave service members. They sacrifice just as much every day, but on these days bear the added burden of the anxiety that must accompany each ring of the phone or knock at the door.   My prayers, too, are with the citizens of Iran. We are all fellow human beings, each of us going through life searching for some of the same things – to be safe, to grow comfortable in our own skin, to find our soulmate, to raise a family, and to live a life of purpose, whatever that purpose may be. But some of us are more fortunate than others to live in a place that allows us to pursue all those things openly. I pray that whoever ultimately takes the helm in Iran allows all citizens the right of self-determination, free of oppression. But it is the Iranians’ right to choose that leader, not our prerogative to dictate it. President Trump was not wrong in joining the attack on Iran. The timing, the preparation, and the end game may be questioned, but the world is the better without the Ayatollah. The world is better without a state sponsor of terrorism. The world is the better with a weakened Iranian military and without Iran’s proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.   But the world would be better still with a plan for what comes next. Hope is not a strategy and expecting civilians to rise up because we launched a few missiles ignores the fact that many in the world have seen what happens when they count on U.S. support only to find it disappears in two, four, or eight years. Afghanistan is a recent example.   Absent a plan, we may end up with leaders in Iran even more fanatical with even more hatred toward us with even more distrust toward negotiating with us. Absent a plan, we may end up with more of the same, but with people less skilled or less restrained in their roles and, as a result, more dangerous. Absent a plan, Iranian nuclear work again goes into overdrive, as their only true deterrent against “The Great Satan.” Absent a plan, a weakened and confused Iran may lose track of some of its weapons; it seems to me the greatest threat isn’t necessarily a nation state with a weapon, but rather a non-nation state with one. But who knows, absent a plan, we may get lucky. I hope so.   Perhaps our founders gave the power to declare war to the Legislature, not the Executive, because they believed that U.S. foreign policy would be more consistent and war would be better planned, with more support from the people, if two large bodies of representatives and senators, rather than one president, had the responsibility to declare war. Perhaps they thought more cynically that an inability of that many legislators to come to consensus would, in and of itself, keep our nation out of war. And that would generally be a good thing. Perhaps, even more telling, the founders placed the responsibility to declare war not as the first enumerated power of the Legislature, but the eleventh. They had just emerged from war and knew its costs. One man or woman should not be able to commit the nation or the world to the economic and human costs of war.   War should require thought and debate. And even with that, a nation can still get it wrong. After all, the reason Iran has been able to become as dangerous as it became, sponsoring terrorism through proxies, is that the United States removed the one counterweight to Iran in the region…Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Bush 41 knew this and left Hussein in power. Bush 43 did not. If you break it, you buy it. Our leaders should be sure we can afford a thing before we deliberately break it.   I fear that this current endeavor in Iran will end as many of President Trump’s endeavors do. He takes flyers. And if they work, great. If they don’t, oh well. But either way he declares victory and moves on to the next shiny object mentioned to him at dinner or over the conservative airwaves by a person knowing if you stroke his ego, he will listen. He has now ruined two presidencies, that both could have been rousing successes, by being himself. We will spend decades fixing his flyers, patching the Constitution, rebuilding trust, rehiring subject matter experts, and our grandkids will take on the interest payments on his national debt. And this is to say nothing of whatever will happen to individuals as a result of our data stolen by DOGE contractors.   One of the saddest truths about war is that often war begins because good people didn’t do enough when they should have to stop a bad man, or even an unthoughtful one, from having an outsized impact on history. As they say, history may not repeat but it certainly does rhyme.   World War II cost countries over $4 trillion in today’s dollars for direct military spending alone. In 1945, the United States spent over 40% of its GDP on defense spending. The total cost of that war, including reconstruction, is estimated to have exceeded $20 trillion in today’s dollars. More importantly, the war took an estimated 60-80 million lives . And that is to say nothing of the damage done to our planet then and still, with upwards of 20,000 shipwrecks continuing to decay on ocean floors. All because no one stopped Adolph Hitler.   The current war in Ukraine has exceeded $1 trillion dollars including reconstruction estimates. It is over 30% of Ukraine’s GDP and over 10% of Russia’s annually. The war has cost over 400,000 lives . And we may never know how many more lives were lost because of the food insecurity caused in other nations by the disruption of food exports from Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia accounted for 30% of world-wide wheat exports before the war. All this because no one stopped Vladimir Putin.   War is expensive. Compare the GDP numbers above to the less than 4% of GDP that the United States spends annually on defense, foreign aid, and our UN contributions combined. By comparison that annual preventative spend is minuscule. There are times for statesmen and times for generals. Good leaders know when to deploy each and when to tell each it’s time for the other to take over. But make no mistake, missiles in the air launched by a nation state are always a failure of foreign policy. That isn’t to say missiles in the air can’t be justifiable. But it is a failure none the less, and usually an expensive one, both in blood and treasure. And often the economic price regressively hits the lower half of the economic spectrum. For those Americans, the current monthly increase of 90-cents per gallon for gasoline doesn’t just hurt, it precludes them from making other purchases. It becomes a lifestyle change. War, even when justified, is always a choice. And bad choices have a way of breeding more bad decisions, like responding to a temporary surge in oil prices by removing U.S. sanctions on Iranian and Russian oil, allowing both those malign actors to fund their respective war efforts. I know that waste, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some may think that a great bottle of wine is waste, others think it a worthwhile pleasure. So too some believe excess government spending on entitlements is a waste. To be sure, there are degrees. But war is the biggest waste of all – billions of dollars in ordinance used over the course of one weekend and the billions more to rebuild compared to the investment of those same dollars in education or healthcare? It’s no contest. One is an expense, the other an investment. It’s just that one makes for better TV. Foreign policy really is just the practice of human relationship. There is no difference between the interactions of two nations or of two human beings. Each has a right to pursue self-interests (or happiness) and a responsibility not to violate another’s in the process. Friction in human relationship, or war in international relationship, occurs when one puts its interests or wants above another’s. Sometimes I think foreign policy is the geo-political equivalent of the ‘where do you want to go for dinner tonight’ conversation. Seemingly an easy question, but sometimes harder in practice. One can’t always pick the restaurant as that is burdensome or controlling. One can’t never pick as that shows indecisiveness and puts all the work on the other person. But one also needs to recognize when the other has simply had a bad day and can’t face making one more decision. Most times, though, both parties need to work toward consensus. And therein lies the challenge.   Just like in human relationship, neighbors are sometimes easier to deal with when their home is a mile down the road rather than 15 feet away. Foreign policy got harder when geography shrank. It got harder when ships were invented. It got harder when airplanes were invented. It got harder when their pollution could reach our shores. It got harder when intercontinental missiles were invented. It got harder when armed drones were invented. And AI will no doubt make it harder still.   And because foreign policy got harder, there is safety in numbers. As tough as one might be, no one likes walking down an alley alone in the wee hours of the morning. Around this big globe of ours, it is always 3 AM somewhere. Knowing other nations will answer the phone is indispensable. We shouldn’t be surprised when we push our friends around on tariffs that they don’t want to use their ships to escort oil tankers out of the Strait of Hormuz for us. We broke it; they didn’t.   Successful relationships, whether between people or nations, require consistency and, at least, the predictability of being present. That isn’t boring. It is security and comfort. In foreign policy it tells your friends you will be there in times of need and your enemies that you will always be watching. If I cannot rely on you in the small things, how can I believe you will be there for the big things. If you take me for granted in one way, you will certainly take me for granted in others. And that is true whether it is the United States feeling it does too much of the heavy lifting in world security or another nation feeling it is always treated as an afterthought.   The golden rule of personal relationship is to treat others as you would like to be treated. It is equally true in foreign relations. Don’t invade lest ye be invaded. Don’t be a bully as you don’t want be bullied. Don’t steal, manipulate, or coerce as you don’t want to be stolen from, manipulated, or coerced. Etc.   Meddling in the lives of others, even with the best of intentions, is also a violation of the golden rule. And it never works out in the end. Many of the mistakes the United States has made in foreign policy are from meddling, or the perception of meddling. And our meddling is sometimes hypocritical. If you preach self-determination, you should practice letting others determine their own course. To be clear here, I don’t mean allowing a malign state actor to develop weapons of mass destruction. Self-defense is not meddling, nor is seeking a world order that protects our own citizens. But our job is to be a democracy and protect the rights of all our citizens. And if modeling that behavior becomes contagious, particularly when bolstered by interdependent global trade and increased social connectivity in the world, then great.   Nations, like people, sometimes forget what they liked about one another or fall into the ‘what have you done for me lately’ trap, forgetting the cumulative good of decades of friendship to instead hold on to that recent slight. That is the transactionalism we have seen from our current administration. It is unseemly. But worse than that it opens the door for tit for tat. It says that whatever the issue of the day, that is larger than our overarching principles. And when principles stop being the navigational force, the moral pull, we are already lost. For even when we are pulled toward the moral, we still sometimes fail. How often would we fail without that pull?     To be sure, sometimes there are irreconcilable differences, divorce in human relationship and war in international relationship. Sometimes there are simply bad actors that need to be cut out of one’s life. And sometimes, someone breaks into your home in the wee hours and deserves to be eliminated. But that is a last resort. You first yell, “Get out and stay out!” That’s the diplomat. When that doesn’t work you pump that shotgun. That’s the sanctions and repositioning of military assets. When that doesn’t work, then and only then do you pull the trigger. But much like a homeowner cannot legally chase that intruder down the street once he flees to gun him down, so too must a superpower use only proportionate force. Because nothing is a greater tool for radicalization than giving a terrorist the ability to turn to an unemployed young man who just saw his sister blown up at school and say that is the “devil” that did this to you.   Time will tell if President Trump was correct to take this aggressive action in Iran. But one thing he was certainly wrong about was to campaign on the idea of pulling us back from armed conflict. The world is full of evil actors as the Iranian regime proves. Campaigning on pulling us back from conflict is a naive premise that forgets the presidencies defined by the attacks on Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11. And voting for someone who campaigns that way, though our hearts may be in the right place, is equally naive. Peace should be our goal, but we don’t consent to be governed and we don’t spend $1 trillion dollars a year on defense because peace is the normal state of man.   The world doesn’t need less America; it needs more. It doesn’t need a less principled and more transactional America; it needs one fighting tooth and nail to cling to its better angels. It doesn’t need a more meddling America; it needs a more consistent, long-term focused one. It needs us, not because we know more than others but because we are the ones in the position to do it. To those much is given, much is expected.   Before wrapping up, I am reminded this week of a theory of behavioral communication I learned about in college called the Parent-Adult-Child model. The name can be misleading as it has less to do with those three actual roles we may play in life and more to do with the three different ego states under which any of us can operate. The first ego state is the Parent, sometimes authoritarian and sometimes nurturing. The second is the Child, reactionary and emotional. The last is the Adult, rational and logical and mature. Effective communication occurs when the two parties operate under their expected ego state. For example, if a parent is communicating to a child from the Parent ego state and the child is responding to the parent from the Child ego state, there is no issue. Issues can arise, for example, when the parent speaks to the child from a Child ego state – reactionary and emotional. Now you have two people in a reactionary, emotional state. It doesn’t go well.   The same can be true in foreign policy. Because while all negotiation goes better when both parties are operating in an Adult-to-Adult ego state (rational, logical, problem solving), too often one country is trying to operate as a Parent toward a Child and too often the other is trying to be treated as an Adult. Think a colonial power and a colony seeking independence. Think a nation that has existed for 5,000 years interacting with a nation that has only existed for 250 years. Think a nation with hundreds of years of grievance, justified or not. In all foreign policy, we need to operate in that Adult-to-Adult state or there will never be peace. Too often, now, nations leave behind a resentment born of treating other nations as children.   There is a funny thing about hurt and resentment. Sometimes future generations hold onto it more so than did the generation that endured the acts that created strife in the first place. And resentment will find an outlet.   There is another thing for which I am praying today. And that is that world leaders recognize that oppression in the name of religion exists on a spectrum. It doesn’t always look as severe as an Ayatollah or the most extreme application of sharia law. It can also be a U.S. Vice President far too comfortable using Christianity as a dog whistle. It can also be an Israeli Prime Minister turning justifiable self-defense into his own crusade. The laws of God and the laws of man are, and must remain, two separate books – respecting people’s beliefs but governing for those of all beliefs and of no belief at all. Too much harm has already been done throughout human history under the guise of religion. And too many people in our country who are pushing a Christian worldview are forgetting that nagging little tenet of our belief…loving thy neighbor.   The morning radio host Don Imus, flawed as he was, had great intellectual curiosity. That is what I loved about him and what I miss most now that he is gone. He spoke of religion using this analogy. Living and working in New York City, he would say that he knew which directions he would give someone to get to Central Park, but he also knew that wasn’t the only way to get there.   For those of us of faith, we were taught it. But no matter how fervently we believe it, we don’t know it for certain. That’s why it is called faith. Looking at world population by religion , 2.3 billion follow Christianity, 2.0 billion follow Islam, 1.2 billion follow Hinduism, 300 million follow Buddhism, and 14 million follow Judaism. But none of us has met our great prophet or deity. So there is a bit of arrogance in believing that one’s faith, above all others, has the corner on the truth and great arrogance in killing for one’s religion. Arrogance isn’t the best of human qualities; humility is.   There will always be fanaticism in the name of religion, unfortunately. But how we interact with other countries can either help lesson fanaticism or increase it. One doesn’t win someone over by telling them they are wrong. One wins someone over by asking them why they believe what they believe and talking to them long enough to find common ground to then build upon. Hatred isn’t born of nothing and it can’t be killed out of existence. Killing creates more hatred that is even harder to talk out.   I guess what I am saying is that one can be right about everything and hold everyone else to that standard. But ultimately that makes for a very lonely, frustrating, and even dangerous life. Community…what human nature craves…requires building consensus and sharing. You know, kindergarten stuff.

I speak often in this space of the importance of words and even more often about the truth being somewhere in the middle. The words we use convey what we value, or don’t. This week’s events – from the Super Bowl to the Olympics to actions in Congress – prove the point. You didn’t have to be Nostradamus to know what the headlines were going to be after this particular Super Bowl. CNN’s read, “Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime performance redefined what it means to be an American patriot.” Fox News’ was, “Bad Bunny’s halftime show ripped for language barrier, suspected political message,” with the words ‘An Abomination’ written over the photo. Worse yet, it seems our politics won’t even allow us all to share the same experiences. I am referring of course to the alternate halftime show put on by Turning Point USA. Why must everything be about everything these days? Why can’t the halftime show simply be about enjoying it if it’s an artist you like or taking a bathroom break if it’s an artist you don’t? Why can’t it simply be about hearing a few catchy tunes in the background while heating up more wings or queso? It seems we live in a world now where everything must have a political point and everything must be commented upon. I am not here to defend Bad Bunny. If the translations I am seeing are accurate for some of his lyrics, including to songs played during this halftime show, they would make for pretty great examples of the word vulgar. But nor am I here to critique him. Some of the visuals in the show were indeed poignant and parts of his message were important.   Those on the far left seem to contort themselves to ignore the offense that some take to the song lyrics and suggestive dancing, instead sticking to talking points of the show’s “unifying and uplifting” message. Those on the far right equally contort themselves to take exception to the lyrics and dancing, seemingly forgetting their own dismissal of Donald Trump’s TMZ recordings as “locker room talk,” all the while ignoring any legitimacy of the show’s message. The truth is that artists push boundaries and with each passing generation that boundary seems farther afield, but perhaps over public airways for an event one in three Americans watch, it may be okay to reign it in a bit. The truth is that the NFL is a business with international ambitions and hype is good for business. The truth is that the United States’ history in Puerto Rico is imperfect to say the very least and pointing that out is very American. The Bill of Rights are merely words on a page. They are only as alive as our actions so demonstrate. In every country on the planet, speech that agrees with the head of state is protected. In every last one. What makes The United States so impressive is that our head of state defends the right to speech with which he disagrees, or at least he is supposed to if he does the only job to which the founders asked him to swear an oath – “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Instead President Trump, our Commentator-in-Chief, needing to opine on all, never choosing to rise above the noise of the day with gravitas, posted the following about Bad Bunny’s halftime show. “…absolutely terrible, one of the worst, Ever! It makes no sense, is an affront to the Greatness of America, and doesn’t represent our standards of Success, Creativity, or Excellence. Nobody understands a word this guy is saying, and the dancing is disgusting, especially for young children that are watching from throughout the U.S.A., and all over the World.” He then went on to brag about record stock markets and assault the NFL kickoff rule. Put aside the fact that 60 million people in this country speak Spanish, so presumably someone understood what Bad Bunny was saying. Put aside the notion that many would consider selling over 100 million albums and winning six Grammy awards to be some measure of success. Put aside that this president, whose lips often drip hatred, is now concerned with what children hear. Put aside that this president, whose overzealous implementation of what could have been good policy contributed to citizens being killed in the streets, is now concerned about what children see. Put all that aside; he gets the larger point wrong. President Trump also gets the larger point wrong on American Olympic skier, Hunter Hess . Hess was asked this week by a reporter what it was like to represent America with everything that is going on back home. He answered, “It’s a little hard. There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of and I think a lot of people aren’t…Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.” The President posted, “U.S. Olympic Skier, Hunter Hess, a real loser, says he doesn’t represent his Country in the current Winter Olympics. If that is the case, he shouldn’t have tried out for the Team, and it’s too bad he’s on it. Very hard to root for someone like this.” Put aside the fact Hess never said he doesn’t represent his country. Put aside every awful thing this president said about this country while he tried out to become our president. Put aside the fact that this goes to one of my biggest pet peeves about President Trump (or anyone), that he bemoans a circumstance while ignoring how he may have contributed to that circumstance. Put all that aside; he gets the larger point wrong. Saying these things about a skier or a performer is beneath the Office of the President. The Office is meant to elevate. It is meant to emulate the core values of our founding documents. It is meant to say that while I disagree with the skier or the performer, it is a testament to all that is great about America that they are free to speak their minds. In many nations on this planet, that performer and that skier would have been disappeared. Not in this country. The Office is supposed to recognize that the performer and the skier are its constituents, and ask itself, is there any merit to the concerns of that performer and that skier, and can we do something better as a result to represent all Americans. The irony is, that if the job is done correctly, the person who exercises the least amount of free speech in our nation should be our president. He is our ceremonial head of state. He represents all Americans, unlike other elected officials who have just a small constituency often with well-aligned regional or economic interests. He represents our founding values and current interests, not his own. His words can mobilize armies and move markets. Those possible repercussions should prescribe deliberate restraint. Also this week, President Trump’s official social media account shared a video on voter fraud that ended with a clip depicting former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes. Per usual his staff tried to label the outrage over this video as fake outrage, miscalculating just how severe and bipartisan the backlash would be. The President has refused to apologize for the video, instead claiming he made no mistake because he only saw the first part of the video and that a staffer should have watched the whole thing before posting. So much for the buck stops here. The only appropriate response would have been immediate apology including a call to the Obamas, and, if it truly was a staffer that posted this at 11:44 PM, to fire that staffer for one of three terminable offenses – either being too lazy to watch the video until the end, too stupid to realize its inherent racism, or for actually being a racist. Buried in this news is the fact that the leader of the free world continues to undermine our election integrity by spreading unproven theories of election fraud for which even Republican Secretaries of State and Republican appointed judges have found no proof.   I’m not naive to the fact that racism and racist-inspired violence still exist in our country. The arc continues to bend and someday it won’t exist at all. We’ve all noticed that the NFL mandates words such as “End Racism” or “Choose Love” be stenciled in end zones and may voluntarily be displayed on helmets. These words convey what they value, which I respect. Though I can’t help but feel they preach to those of us in the choir and alienate those who they will never convince. For me, this is one of those times I feel words aren’t needed. Sport, after all, has an amazing capacity to teach, often without words. What better teacher than seeing a white lineman from rural Alabama shoulder to shoulder with his black teammate from Detroit, bringing their skills to bear toward a shared goal and then giving each other a giant bear hug after they win? This week the Guthrie family continues to endure the heartbreaking agony of trying to find their mother, Nancy . And a nation, captivated by this story, continues to pray she is found and returned safely. Every tool should be brought to bear to ensure that. But those of us in the middle also admit that this is a tragedy too many American families endure, but most don’t get the resources that have been given to this case. The names of most missing people will never cross the lips of a news anchor, an FBI Director, an Attorney General, or a President. Of the over 1,000 other people missing in Arizona today and the tens of thousands missing across the country, a disproportionate amount are people of color. Why is that and how can we fix it? This week we saw the SAVE Act continue its journey in Congress. This is a voter ID bill to ensure that only American citizens can vote in federal elections. The vast majority of Americans believe it is reasonable we prove citizenship to register and show a photo ID to the eagle-eyed retiree at the polling station in order to vote. Figuring out how we execute this is the issue, because I am sure if we asked all 435 Representatives in Congress to find their original birth certificate tomorrow, we would be stunned by how many could not. First let’s cast aside the extreme talking points. The far right would have you believe the left opened the borders specifically to allow illegals to vote Democratic in federal elections and the far left would have you believe Republicans are trying to use this issue as a smoke screen to disenfranchise poor Americans who tend to vote Democratic. Enough. It’s time for the middle to say showing proof of citizenship to register and photo ID to vote is not disenfranchisement, so long as the ID being requested is available and affordable to all. And when not available, the onus should be on the state to timely help that citizen cure the fault. It’s also okay for the middle to admit that if citizens truly value their franchise, they won’t wait until 5 PM on election day to try to register using their gym memberships. We can’t value a person’s right to vote more than he does! I’ve gotten long-winded and want to wrap up. As is often the case, my reflections this week on national issues swirled in my head along with things said by wiser people than I. This week I thought of the quote often attributed to Lao Tzu. “Watch your thoughts, they become your words. Watch your words, they become your actions. Watch your actions, they become your habits. Watch your habits, they become your character. Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.” The words of our leaders become our national destiny. We should be careful which of theirs we tolerate or celebrate. And right on cue, on television in the background I hear Congressmen and the Attorney General all behaving badly, with the Attorney General calling the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee “ a washed-up loser lawyer .” Everyone to your respective corners to fundraise!

I’m optimistic about 2026. Those were the words with which I had envisioned beginning my first post of the new year. And that’s saying something for a guy like me, wired as I am a bit the pessimist. But I’ve always tried to be very optimistic about America.   I grew up in Ronald Reagan’s optimism. I read of greatness – our first president willingly giving up power, another saving the Union and ending slavery, unfathomable bravery on the beaches of Normandy, and walking on the Moon. Regardless of large policy differences, I’ve celebrated our firsts – the Obama family walking out onto that stage, he as the President-elect of the United States, and Kamala Harris taking to the podium as Vice President-elect. Do I wish their politics were different? I do. But still I loved those moments for us as a country.   I’m equally awed by those who write America well, devouring things written by greats such as the incomparable Peggy Noonan . I’m even drawn to and inspired by great fictional Americans. I’ve found great joy in the screenwriting of Aaron Sorkin with his fictional presidents Jed Bartlett and Andrew Shepherd. I’ve hoped beyond hope that the real-life staffers who walk the halls of the White House, be they Republican or Democrat, are as wisely weathered as his Leo McGarry, as wonderfully complex as his Toby Ziegler, as morally grounded and astute as his Claudia Jean Cregg, and as willing to speak truth to power as his Lewis Rothschild .   Perhaps this is my own idealism or naivete coming through. But I’m keeping it. I’m holding tight to my sense of America, the sense that comes from the amalgamation in my mind of giant acts from real-life leaders throughout our history, the fictional portrayals of leaders we can only aspire to have, my sense that divine providence surely has shined upon this nation, and my faith in a continued commitment to meet that big idea that all are created equal.   So for 2026, I saw reason for American optimism. Sure, a democratic socialist was just sworn in as mayor of New York City. Sure, we still have a chief executive who acts the dictator and then wonders why the media portrays him as one. But my optimism centers on my feeling we are about to turn the corner. Both the democratic socialist and the MAGA dictator will learn in 2026 where the true power lies in America, with the people. And the people are somewhere between those extremes.   A socialist mayor will learn that governing is harder than campaigning, because while one can campaign in idealism, one must govern in consensus. He will learn that businesses and citizens will bear only so much taxation, and idealism can cost a ton of money.   And a president will learn what a bridge too far looks like. More and more, even if by one or two, and even if also by flawed officials, Republicans are starting to find their backbone, beginning to be willing to cross a president of the same party. Perhaps too late and perhaps too calculated. I say that because in all matters of courage and conscience, whether it’s in a school yard or in public policy, when you step in matters. But the cracks have formed and water will begin rushing through. And an administration of all too unskilled operators will find they can’t stop it. And then the midterms. And then, as has happened to every other president, this one will learn the powerlessness that is lame duckery.   Both sides, the far too MAGA and the far too progressive will learn very quickly that the all-too-common-sense American won’t have either. That, anyway, was the basis of my 2026 optimism. But then as too often happens, optimism got a punch in the face from the mundanity that is real life.   The real life of the last few weeks began when President Trump referred to blowing other human beings off the planet on Christmas Day – even if they were terrorists worthy of elimination – as a Christmas present, as if that is the appropriate way to mark the birth of the Prince of Peace.   Real life included the removal of a head of state and the ridiculous communications surrounding it. Nicolas Maduro was an illegitimate president and a narco-terrorist according to both the Biden and Trump administrations. He deserves what happens to him. And though Stephen Miller would have you believe Maduro was removed to keep our borders secure and Marco Rubio simply to prosecute an indictment, our President, in what must give his aids incessant heartburn, will not stay on any of those messages. Instead, it’s “Drill baby, drill.”   Never mind that our taking of Maduro gives the international community pause. Never mind it gives members of Congress on both sides pause, particularly because the administration failed to notify the Gang of Eight in advance. Apparently, that would compromise operational security, but a Signal chat with a reporter included was harmless. Never mind that oil prices are almost already too low to spur further exploration. Never mind that US oil companies don’t want any part of having to invest those dollars, knowing it’s the wrong time in the wrong place, a place that has burned them before. And never mind that “drill baby drill” is not worth one scratch on one member of our incredible military, nor the wasting of one taxpayer-funded munition. Nor is removing an illegitimate president unless, perhaps, it is defending citizens of a nation attempting to do so themselves. After all, we too threw off a dictator. It required France’s help, but we made the determination for ourselves.   There is also something a bit too on the nose about the Trump administration indicting a president in part because he and his family were profiting from their positions. Certainly, drugs are worse than crypto, but unethical profiting is still unethical profiting.   There is also something unseemly about a superpower appearing to flex its muscles without being very careful about expressing the why, and having that why be justifiable in the eyes of the world of nations. That’s why we have built coalitions in the past, not because we couldn’t do a thing alone but rather because the doing alone can scare others. It scares them as to what is next. And that is especially true when the acting nation is led by a man who muses about making Canada its 51 st state, displacing Gazans to turn Gaza into the new Riviera, taking back the Panama Canal, taking Ukraine’s natural resources in return for its help against an invader, and taking Greenland either the easy way or the hard way . There is something about regulating the crap out of one’s resources at home but seeking to coerce access to the resources of other nations abroad that isn’t particularly how a good and just nation should behave.   President Trump’s supporters call all of these simply negotiating tactics, while ignoring both the real and perceived implications of a super power going around eyeing every other kid’s lunch money. Even just the eyeing is destabilizing to the world order. It throws away the hard-earned faith and credit of the United States and deals body blows to the international work that has framed the post World War decades. And if we aren’t careful, it takes the seat this administration has vacated at the table with our allies, the seat our allies were keeping warm for us until 2029, and threatens to permanently move it into storage. And that is to say nothing of the implications to the UN, an already too feckless organization. And all the while, unrest in Iran , unrest that may require the US and its allies to be in lockstep, continues to grow.   Then, of course, real life brought us the shooting of Renee Good. The death of anyone is a tragedy. Equally tragic is that people seeing the same videos cannot agree on just what the tragedy is. Is it an overreaching executive branch, using heavy-handed tactics that instill more fear into a community than its benefits secure for that community, pitted against concerned citizens wanting to protect their neighbors from being swooped up in the same broad nets as the criminals? Or is it agitators putting themselves in positions that make it harder for legitimate law enforcement, setting up scenarios that can end in one losing a life and one not being able to recall bullets fired in an instant? Even the ICE masks, are they the device of a thug or a necessary tool to lessen the threat of doxing. Like all else, so much is dependent on the channel you watch. And like all else, the truth is somewhere in the middle. There never is a middle ground anymore. We just question each other’s motives.   The first few weeks of 2026 has brought smallness, too. Secretary of Defense (this name will be back in a few years after wasting taxpayer money on new signs and stationery) Pete Hegseth has initiated a review of Senator Mark Kelly’s military retirement grade and pay in response to the Senator’s participation in a video with other lawmakers that advised military service members to refuse illegal orders. To be sure this was an ill-advised video . First, it made an assumption that our brave women and men in uniform needed to be reminded of their duties and oaths. I have more faith in them than that. Second, it was lawmakers saying, in essence, that servicemen needed to do the heavy lifting in this case, not legislators. I would rather have had a video of servicemen reminding Congressmen what their Constitutional role is to check the Executive. Be this as it may, Senator Kelly served his country for 25 years in uniform, commanded two space shuttle missions, endured with his wife the trauma and life-altering effects of the gun violence she suffered, and now serves as the senior senator from Arizona. This retaliation is small. And the resultant lawsuit just filed will needlessly cost taxpayers money. Besides, “seditious” isn’t a word this administration should use casually so close to January 6 th .   The official White House government website added a January 6 th anniversary page . It begins with an oversized picture of Nancy Pelosi above the members of the Select Committee to investigate January 6 th . Inexplicably, though the subliminal intent seems fairly clear to me, the photo itself shakes and the border repeatedly flashes with bright light. But sure, it’s the left that encourages political violence. The website goes on to list so many inaccuracies and lies, it’s frightening. But of course, the website won’t move the needle on how one feels about January 6 th and it has an intended audience of just one anyway. Your taxpayer dollars hard at work!   Against the backdrop of these events, another phrase keeps coming to my mind. It is the iconic words of the character Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street . He said, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” And he was right. Up until a point, greed, at least the unselfish part of it, is good. Greed for life, for happiness, for success, for joy. All good. What isn’t good is when greed becomes voraciousness. What isn’t good is when it becomes a selfishness that robs others of their opportunity. What isn’t good is when it becomes an obsession, seeking something at the expense of all else. Then it destroys you and others. We, in our silos of political belief, have become greedy to be right. And President Trump has become voracious. And it is well past time for all to show restraint.   I’ve spoken often in this space of the proper role of government. The underlying premise of all of its roles is to provide stability. It should create a safe, predictable, and stable environment, so that its citizens and its businesses can do the rest. Stability requires restraint. Anway.   I spoke earlier of President Reagan and of Mark Kelly’s space shuttle service. The confluence of the two has reminded me that we are just two weeks away from the 40 th anniversary of the Challenger disaster. I was in eighth grade in New Hampshire and I still remember the look on my English teacher’s face when we learned that the crew, including another school teacher from New Hampshire named Christa McAuliffe, was gone. I reflect in this moment on Americans braver than I. And I am reminded of the words Ms. Noonan wrote for President Reagan’s address to the nation , words addressed directly to the schoolchildren who watched the disaster live. “The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.”   And if that doesn’t get you, how about some Jed Bartlett . “Every time we think we’ve measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we’re reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. This is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard. We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars.” Yea, I’m still optimistic.

We’re in trouble. I know I should be posting more uplifting reading this close to the holidays, but I’ve had an interesting few weeks. I’ve been working on closing a business deal and starting a new venture. And both have been eye opening. We’re in trouble. AI is coming for us, and I don’t mean the end of times kind of trouble. I mean the disruption kind of trouble. The end of times trouble will find us soon enough if reckless competition outpaces regulation and if a handful of companies get to decide for us what the future holds. And that is to say nothing of malign actors. But well before the end times trouble, we’ll have economic disruption trouble. By way of backdrop, in attempting to close that business deal, I find we are working at the pace of lawyers. Which is to say, we aren’t working at the pace of business or at an acceptable pace for the year almost 2026. This deal has been agreed to in principle for some time, but it has been so delayed in the papering of it that it will cost everyone time and money. Well, except those billing by the hour. Against that old economy backdrop, I spent several days last week discussing a new venture. I sat with younger, more tech-savvy folks who showed me a bit about what I don’t know, or at least something to which I had no real exposure – AI. I knew, as many have been discussing, that AI was coming for our entry level jobs. I knew those jobs and jobs of a more rote nature would be taken over by AI agents. I worried about what that might mean for those at the lower rungs of business and those entering the workforce. I also worried about what that meant for career development. After all, today’s Chief Financial Officer learned valuable things by being yesterday’s entry-level cost accountant. But what I learned over the last few days is that AI is coming for all of us, regardless of job or level on the organizational chart. I watched in astonishment as those I was with turned to their phones and asked their AI agents (to whom they have given personalized first names) for answers to everything. I listened as the voices of these AI agents, in tones that could be friendly or supportive or instructive, guided those I was with through both their professional and personal lives. I listened as ChatGPT replaced a financial consultant, explaining to a business owner what steps to take to increase the valuation of his business. It was correct, industry-specific, and quantifiable. I listened as AI guided a salesperson through dealing with that customer…you know the one who is too big to dump but so annoying you spend half the day in deep breathing exercises. It drafted email responses that retained the customer but improved the understanding between the two organizations. I listened as ChatGPT replaced a therapist, explaining to someone how best to navigate a family holiday crisis. It was understanding, pitch perfect, and may have saved relationships from permanent harm. I listened as it replaced a best friend and matchmaker, guiding a man in our group through the minefield of early dating. It was a modern-day masterclass on how to be interested without sounding desperate. It determined the woman’s “attachment” style and instructed this man how best to communicate with her as a result. And yes, then when prompted, it explained to the group just what an attachment style is. All of this AI agenting was instantaneous. Just feed it an email thread or text chain or prompt. Watch out attorney who delays reply until after her big trial is over. Watch out therapist who can squeeze you in next month on the 27 th . Watch out consultant whose years of industry wisdom can be replaced by AI that has already devoured every business book ever written, every case study ever studied, and every stat from every industry ever statted. Watch out universities. Your tuition’s return on investment was already becoming dangerously low. Now everyone can just seek a specific knowledge item when needed. Watch out Dear Abby. Watch out best friend. And yes someday, no doubt, watch out significant other. Scarier still, I watched and listened as one person’s AI agent talked directly to another’s. I even listened to them “roast” each other. Side note…roasting is all the rage in 2025. I can’t wait until that word is gone. It hurts my ears even more than the overuse of “curated.” Why is it that young people want so desperately to be roasted? If I used AI, I might ask. I naively thought AI was wrong more than right. And it does get it wrong sometimes because it too is learning from inaccurate information. Just a few weeks ago, Google AI search tried to tell me that the golfing great, Jack Nicklaus, putted using a left-hand low grip. He didn’t. Smart people will have to figure out how we deal with these inaccuracies. But I didn’t hear much wrong in my eavesdropped two-day crash course in AI last week. And further still, I don’t know that it would have mattered. It was taken as gospel. So, what does this mean for our economy and our future? I think it safe to say our leaders aren’t doing enough to think about it or prepare for it. They are too busy taking 43-day paid vacations and, well, roasting one another. AI isn’t going to affect just those entering the workforce or those in repetitive jobs. And it isn’t just going to affect those in the service sector. AI combined with robotics will decimate manufacturing jobs as well. Even if bringing manufacturing home to the United States is the right move (I’ve argued against that for many reasons from economic to global security), those manufacturing jobs aren’t going to be done by human beings in our future. AI and robotics are coming for all our jobs, yes even the trades. What electric company would send a man up onto that pole in a storm if there were an option to send a machine that can work 24/7 without rest, one that can be dropped in from a drone instead of driving his heavy truck through felled trees and washed-out roads? What am I even talking about, twenty years from now AI will be explaining to a young person what an electric pole was. And while all these jobs won’t disappear tomorrow, they will disappear. What will we all do then? Perhaps we can drive for Uber. Oh wait, we already have self-driving ride share and both autonomous air taxis and delivery drones are on the way. Perhaps we can become artists. Oh wait, AI can write a novel in the voice of Ernest Hemingway or carve a sculpture in the style of Rodin. And as my nephew proved to me a few weeks ago, it can write, play, and sing a pretty darn good song. All artists are inspired by what they have seen or heard. So how does one compete with something that has seen and heard everything ever created? I’m not even sure professional athletes are safe. Seeing a soccer player score with a bicycle kick is cool, but a robot soccer player that could combine an ice skater’s triple Salchow into a bicycle kick…now that’s entertainment. To be sure there is enormous potential benefit in using AI. But there is cataclysmic disruption. And all I’ve spoken of here is the labor force disruption. No, the total disruption from AI will make the industrial revolution or the internet revolution look merely like switching from propeller planes to jet planes. Today I have no answers as tech companies race to retire us, only a question. That question is...and then what? We on the right scoff at the left’s notions of universal basic income. But the right may need that income very, very soon.