Having just decisively won an election, there is little reason to expect Republicans — currently under the spell of Donald Trump — to decide to offer anything new in their politics, why would they?3
Republicans may have chosen Trump, but independents and independent thinkers elected him.
and correct me if I am wrong but Democrats: used social media to censor truth an thought that was OK because only they know misinformation form truth. They got supposedly 51 former intelligence officials to sign a letter saying the hunter laptop story was Russian disinformation even though many knew, and the rest should have known, that wasn't true. Manipulating the election. You know exactly like the Russians would do. They expanded government and started legislating by bureaucrats. They want to control the SCOTUS. The third leg of our independent branches of government made to be the ultimate check and balance system.
In other words, the closes we have ever come to a dictatorship, take over of the government, is joe and the Dems. Internal violence insurrection will never be a threat to the future of this country unless tyranny exist. And people actually believe that Dems are the future?
I would say that people which such beliefs are a threat to this country. But ultimately, there is a system in our Constitution to remedy such a govenrment take over. And the people with those beliefs have the firepower to fight effectively to maintain what the founders created. The first amendment is sacrosanct. If you aren't smart enough to effectively counter mis/dis information, get out of the game. You are not helping anyone. SMH
Democrats lost because they are out of touch with what really matters to the average Joe or Josephine, they have become the country club republicans of the 50s and 60s except now they hang out at expensive spa retreats in Marin County instead of playing golf.
Wealthy, smug, arrogant, elitist. Couldn’t be happier that they got blown out in this election.
If you are going to talk about politics you should at least ditch the biased language. “You described Republicans as under the “spell” of Trump in order to conclude that they can’t do anything innovative. Would you use that language on the other side. Were Democrats under the spell of Kamala Harris? The team Trump has assembled is full of innovators and change agents unlike any I have seen in my lifetime. TBD if that makes positive change happen but it is blinders to not see the possibility.
More biased language comes in one of your recommended sources. Apparently radical Republicans tend toward violence and contempt of democracy but Democrat radicals have mere “foibles”. The destruction and injuries from Antifa riots and BLM riots are foibles?
There was a key topic left unmentioned. Censorship is high on my list. In the digital age once it gets entrenched it is nearly impossible to dislodge partially because it is nearly invisible to see. No more ostentatious smashing of printing presses as in olden days. For an honest broker on this topic see Matt Taibbi on X or Substack.
You need to work on your list of best independent media. The fact you don’t recognize the inconsistencies above is evidence of cloistered reading. Apparently the sources you recommend are not giving you the full, honest picture. I am not asking you to be a Republican, just that you have a more complete picture.
I'm reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart in which he finds a similar theme of graduates/non-graduates. His analysis of the reasons as to why Trump won his first election is excellent and applies also to the recent US election (the Democrats seem not have learned anything from Clinton's defeat) and explains the rise of various populist (from both right and left) parties in Europe and the UK.
I respect your thoughtful and scientific based analysis regarding climate issues. I find it surprising that you don’t recognize the left’s cult like adherence to its orthodoxy that is exactly like Michael Mann’s positions against you!
You talked about “climate voters… these wont exist in the majority if its at all traded with prosperity
Only a minority will buy it if its going to mean economic pain.. which is what it’s already causing.
The best option is make it a much longer term goal and stop the alarmism and panic or rethink the science that will probably mean doing nothing but some focused adaption to a naturally warming planet.
You talked about “climate voters… these wont exist in the majority if its at all traded with prosperity
Only a minority will buy it if its going to mean economic pain.. which is what it’s already causing.
The best option is make it a much longer term goal and stop the alarmism and panic or rethink the science that will probably mean doing nothing but some focused adaption to a naturally warming planet.
After 3 terms of Obama ruling with the gloves off, by executive fiat, (which includes the Paris Agreement which should have gone to the Senate for ratification, which it wouldn't have done), why expect Trump to put the gloves back on?
Here are some comments about the possible implications of Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
All of this depends, of course, on the degree to which Trump’s policy statements made prior to the election are mere rhetoric as opposed to realistic actions. This, in turn, depends on whether or not it is practical to implement policy statements made rhetorically.
As an idealist, prone to oversimplification, I hope that implemented policies, whatever they may finally be, would be abandonned (or substantially modified) if they failed to produce expected results. I am not, however, confident that the incoming Administration will even admit failure. The spectre of mis- or dis-information looms large here, and a significant fraction of the public seems willing to accept these obfuscations in the face of truth. I suspect that the incoming Administration will not be immune from spreading such falsehoods.
These considerations aside, here is a list of Trump’s policy statements that concern me most. I may have some details wrong, so please excuse any inadvertent errors.
(1) Trump’s plan is to introduce tariffs on all imports : initially 10% for imports from all countries except China (a believable threat), with proposed tariffs on imports from China of 60% (surely unlikely). These tariffs, Trump says, could be raisied if they failed to produce the desired results (hmmm). Economists anticipate that these tariffs would add to annual familiy expenses by as much as $1,700 … and lead to increased inflation.
(2) He (and other Republicans) have discussed the possibility of reducing (or perhaps eliminating) Social Security. In parallel, they have discussed possibly eliminating the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) with a view to replacing it by “something better”. It is alarming that, after nine years of waffle, Trump has offered, as a replacement, nothing but “a concept”. Whatever, almost certainly, the “better” would eliminate insurance cover for people with pre-existing conditions. Tens of millions of people would be adversely affected.
(3) A slew of environmental legislations would be eliminated, and, as a distinct possibility, the Environmental Protection Agency could be closed down (or replaced by something with no “teeth”.) Most policies to reduce the magnitude of future climate change would be repealed, and Trump would likely remove the USA from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change with a view to abdicating from the Paris Agreement.
(4) Funds and military technology support for the Ukraine could be drastically reduced or eliminated entirely, with dire consequences for the country, and for global security in general. Related, Trump is likely to pressure NATO countries to increase their financial support for the Alliance, with a threat that the USA would either drastically reduce funding support to NATO (and other U.N. organizations), or completely drop out of membership of these bodies.
(5) A huge number of the 11 million undocumented “aliens” currently in the country would be rounded up and deported, and the border (at least to Mexico) would be closed. The practicality of doing this seems to have, so far, been ignored; and the costs involved run to billions of dollars. Deportations are likely, but for the whole 11 million? Unlikely for many reasons.
(6) Similarly, the importance of these people to our economy, and the effects of such a massive deportation project on the huge (35 trillion dollar) current national debt (largely, a “gift” from Trump’s first term), has been ignored. There is no plan for how to reduce the deficit, and the consequences of not doing so (or worse, increasing it) would be seriously detrimental for the economy.
(7) A final item on my list of scary prospects is the Supreme Court. If any Justices retire or die in the next four years, Trump will have the power to select replacements. The following list ranks current Justices by age, giving their age first followed by their current length of service given in parenthesis, followed then by their estimated political leanings (L = liberal; C = conservative; based on their Martin-Quinn scores): Thomas 76 (33) C; Alito 74 (19) C; Sotomayer 70 (25) L; Roberts 69 (19) C; Kagan 64 (24) L; Kavanaugh 59 (6) C; Gorsuch 57 (8) C; Barrett 52 (4) C; Jackson 54 (2) L. The two oldest are both strongly conservative, so replacement by Trump would probably not affect the overall L/C “balance”. There is, however, potential to affect the balances in lower courts.
Regarding (3)...I worked for a contractor for the U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards--the people who write air pollution regulations--for more than 25 years.
Now that I'm retired with no hope/need to ever work in the air pollution control industry again, I'll say this. It's something I don't think I've explicitly ever written in public before.
It was extremely wrong to allow the U.S. EPA to write regulations limiting carbon dioxide. The 1970 Clean Air Act does *not* support the U.S. EPA's regulating CO2 as a pollutant. And the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are further proof of just how ridiculous the idea is that the Executive Branch can write regulations limiting CO2 emissions.
For those who don't know the history, global warming was simply *not* a concern when the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. And the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have pages and pages written by Congress, telling the EPA how to regulate 189 "hazardous air pollutants" (e.g. mercury, selenium, dioxins/furans, benzene, etc. etc.).
It's absolutely ridiculous to think that that Congress intended in the Clean Air Act of 1970 for the U.S. EPA to regulate CO2, if it wasn't even mentioned as a pollutant. And it's even more ridiculous considering that the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have sooooo much detailed language on just how the U.S. EPA was to develop regulations for the 189 "hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)", but ***no*** detailed language on how the U.S. EPA was to regulate CO2 emissions. Simple logic says this is insane, because regulation of CO2 is far, far, far more important to the U.S. economy than regulation of the HAPs.
I was extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court allowing the U.S. EPA to regulate CO2. It was a totally illogical decision.
Roger, consistent with THB, thanks for wearing your heart on your sleeve as well as admitting your sentimental bias in your view of the candidates and election outcome. I have even more respect for you now, as I have never observed any bias in your valuable analyses and conclusions. You are the epitome of the honest broker.
I think the current version of the Democrats, like the current version of the canadian liberal party, represent the biggest danger by far to “our democracy” and therefore I’m glad to see part 1 go down in flames.
Hoping they take most of the media down with them.
Looking forward to the next canadian federal election and hoping the Liberals use the opportunity to double down on insane energy and economic policy.
I think Trump won in 2016 and went in with no clue how anything works or how to get anything done.
I think he goes in completely different this time, so we’ll see.
After what we know now, anyone who say there is no “swamp” is simply not credible.
If they can stick to the basics and not get sidetracked with nonsense they can accomplish a lot.
The campaign was full of many memorable moments. Unfortunately, not many were policy discussions and listening to voters shockingly proved more effective than lecturing to them (and worse). Paraphrasing the late Molly Ivin, I am optimistic about America to the point of ridiculousness. Quoting my son, no person or party is stronger than the Constitution and our representative Republic. May you enjoy your travels Roger and may both parties put a little more energy into governing. Best to all.
The post and the comments have been enlightening. However, I have one nitpick about what you said toward the end of your piece. Transgender athletes is not a “niche” issue, at least not to women athletes. I’d suggest reaching out to former U of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines for a chat about this.
I don't think something is "politically niche" if people across a broad spectrum of political ideologies can agree on that something.
And I don't think opinion polls that "show that very few people decide who to vote for based on this issue" make it a "niche" political issue. First of all, I'd bet $100*** that most polls don't even list "transgender participation in sports" as a policy issue, when the polls ask about issues on which voters will vote. And even if some polls *do* list that issue, if the question is asked in terms of "What is the most important issue on which you'll base your vote?"...then of course few people would list it as #1.
But it's very clear-cut issue. For example, if a voter was asked about the economy or peace, who really knows whether Harris or Trump would be better for those two issues? But if it's "Who would be more likely to promote transgender participation in women's sports?" the choice is very clear. And the majority of people--again, across political ideologies--don't want people whose gender at birth is not female to be participating in girls'/womens' sports.
P.S. *** I chose $100, because I need to get back the $100 I lost, when I bet against Donald Trump winning the popular vote by more than 2 percent. ;-)
"A broader argument could be made here about the Democrats recent tendency to take niche issues of the cultural elite and turn them into wedge issues to motivate a small part of their “base.” Republicans tend to do this too (transgender athletes, anyone?),..."
I don't think transgender athletes motivate a "small part of (the Republican) 'base'".
I'm in no way a part of the Republican "base." I vote straight ticket Libertarian. And I'm socially liberal.
But I'm also a former athlete. And I can see probabilities for what they are. Transgender athletes competing in girls'/womens' sports are winning and setting records at extraordinary percentages. Those percentages are far, far beyond chance. That's simply not fair. And I think virtually everyone agrees:
"There are new intellectual currents within the Republicans’ shadow party that are skeptical about the reign of big business and free market ideology and endorse a version of industrial policy. These include the think tank American Compass and the journal American Affairs. We wish them well. "
Oy, vey! Because no one knows what technologies should be favored better than a few people in Washington, DC, using other people's money. :-/
Having just decisively won an election, there is little reason to expect Republicans — currently under the spell of Donald Trump — to decide to offer anything new in their politics, why would they?3
Republicans may have chosen Trump, but independents and independent thinkers elected him.
and correct me if I am wrong but Democrats: used social media to censor truth an thought that was OK because only they know misinformation form truth. They got supposedly 51 former intelligence officials to sign a letter saying the hunter laptop story was Russian disinformation even though many knew, and the rest should have known, that wasn't true. Manipulating the election. You know exactly like the Russians would do. They expanded government and started legislating by bureaucrats. They want to control the SCOTUS. The third leg of our independent branches of government made to be the ultimate check and balance system.
In other words, the closes we have ever come to a dictatorship, take over of the government, is joe and the Dems. Internal violence insurrection will never be a threat to the future of this country unless tyranny exist. And people actually believe that Dems are the future?
I would say that people which such beliefs are a threat to this country. But ultimately, there is a system in our Constitution to remedy such a govenrment take over. And the people with those beliefs have the firepower to fight effectively to maintain what the founders created. The first amendment is sacrosanct. If you aren't smart enough to effectively counter mis/dis information, get out of the game. You are not helping anyone. SMH
Democrats lost because they are out of touch with what really matters to the average Joe or Josephine, they have become the country club republicans of the 50s and 60s except now they hang out at expensive spa retreats in Marin County instead of playing golf.
Wealthy, smug, arrogant, elitist. Couldn’t be happier that they got blown out in this election.
Viva La Revolution!!
This by Yuval Levin, a colleague of mine at AEI, is excellent
https://thedispatch.com/article/what-trumps-win-doesnt-mean/
If you are going to talk about politics you should at least ditch the biased language. “You described Republicans as under the “spell” of Trump in order to conclude that they can’t do anything innovative. Would you use that language on the other side. Were Democrats under the spell of Kamala Harris? The team Trump has assembled is full of innovators and change agents unlike any I have seen in my lifetime. TBD if that makes positive change happen but it is blinders to not see the possibility.
More biased language comes in one of your recommended sources. Apparently radical Republicans tend toward violence and contempt of democracy but Democrat radicals have mere “foibles”. The destruction and injuries from Antifa riots and BLM riots are foibles?
There was a key topic left unmentioned. Censorship is high on my list. In the digital age once it gets entrenched it is nearly impossible to dislodge partially because it is nearly invisible to see. No more ostentatious smashing of printing presses as in olden days. For an honest broker on this topic see Matt Taibbi on X or Substack.
You need to work on your list of best independent media. The fact you don’t recognize the inconsistencies above is evidence of cloistered reading. Apparently the sources you recommend are not giving you the full, honest picture. I am not asking you to be a Republican, just that you have a more complete picture.
I'm reading The Road to Somewhere by David Goodhart in which he finds a similar theme of graduates/non-graduates. His analysis of the reasons as to why Trump won his first election is excellent and applies also to the recent US election (the Democrats seem not have learned anything from Clinton's defeat) and explains the rise of various populist (from both right and left) parties in Europe and the UK.
I respect your thoughtful and scientific based analysis regarding climate issues. I find it surprising that you don’t recognize the left’s cult like adherence to its orthodoxy that is exactly like Michael Mann’s positions against you!
Roger
You talked about “climate voters… these wont exist in the majority if its at all traded with prosperity
Only a minority will buy it if its going to mean economic pain.. which is what it’s already causing.
The best option is make it a much longer term goal and stop the alarmism and panic or rethink the science that will probably mean doing nothing but some focused adaption to a naturally warming planet.
Roger
You talked about “climate voters… these wont exist in the majority if its at all traded with prosperity
Only a minority will buy it if its going to mean economic pain.. which is what it’s already causing.
The best option is make it a much longer term goal and stop the alarmism and panic or rethink the science that will probably mean doing nothing but some focused adaption to a naturally warming planet.
After 3 terms of Obama ruling with the gloves off, by executive fiat, (which includes the Paris Agreement which should have gone to the Senate for ratification, which it wouldn't have done), why expect Trump to put the gloves back on?
Here are some comments about the possible implications of Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
All of this depends, of course, on the degree to which Trump’s policy statements made prior to the election are mere rhetoric as opposed to realistic actions. This, in turn, depends on whether or not it is practical to implement policy statements made rhetorically.
As an idealist, prone to oversimplification, I hope that implemented policies, whatever they may finally be, would be abandonned (or substantially modified) if they failed to produce expected results. I am not, however, confident that the incoming Administration will even admit failure. The spectre of mis- or dis-information looms large here, and a significant fraction of the public seems willing to accept these obfuscations in the face of truth. I suspect that the incoming Administration will not be immune from spreading such falsehoods.
These considerations aside, here is a list of Trump’s policy statements that concern me most. I may have some details wrong, so please excuse any inadvertent errors.
(1) Trump’s plan is to introduce tariffs on all imports : initially 10% for imports from all countries except China (a believable threat), with proposed tariffs on imports from China of 60% (surely unlikely). These tariffs, Trump says, could be raisied if they failed to produce the desired results (hmmm). Economists anticipate that these tariffs would add to annual familiy expenses by as much as $1,700 … and lead to increased inflation.
(2) He (and other Republicans) have discussed the possibility of reducing (or perhaps eliminating) Social Security. In parallel, they have discussed possibly eliminating the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) with a view to replacing it by “something better”. It is alarming that, after nine years of waffle, Trump has offered, as a replacement, nothing but “a concept”. Whatever, almost certainly, the “better” would eliminate insurance cover for people with pre-existing conditions. Tens of millions of people would be adversely affected.
(3) A slew of environmental legislations would be eliminated, and, as a distinct possibility, the Environmental Protection Agency could be closed down (or replaced by something with no “teeth”.) Most policies to reduce the magnitude of future climate change would be repealed, and Trump would likely remove the USA from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change with a view to abdicating from the Paris Agreement.
(4) Funds and military technology support for the Ukraine could be drastically reduced or eliminated entirely, with dire consequences for the country, and for global security in general. Related, Trump is likely to pressure NATO countries to increase their financial support for the Alliance, with a threat that the USA would either drastically reduce funding support to NATO (and other U.N. organizations), or completely drop out of membership of these bodies.
(5) A huge number of the 11 million undocumented “aliens” currently in the country would be rounded up and deported, and the border (at least to Mexico) would be closed. The practicality of doing this seems to have, so far, been ignored; and the costs involved run to billions of dollars. Deportations are likely, but for the whole 11 million? Unlikely for many reasons.
(6) Similarly, the importance of these people to our economy, and the effects of such a massive deportation project on the huge (35 trillion dollar) current national debt (largely, a “gift” from Trump’s first term), has been ignored. There is no plan for how to reduce the deficit, and the consequences of not doing so (or worse, increasing it) would be seriously detrimental for the economy.
(7) A final item on my list of scary prospects is the Supreme Court. If any Justices retire or die in the next four years, Trump will have the power to select replacements. The following list ranks current Justices by age, giving their age first followed by their current length of service given in parenthesis, followed then by their estimated political leanings (L = liberal; C = conservative; based on their Martin-Quinn scores): Thomas 76 (33) C; Alito 74 (19) C; Sotomayer 70 (25) L; Roberts 69 (19) C; Kagan 64 (24) L; Kavanaugh 59 (6) C; Gorsuch 57 (8) C; Barrett 52 (4) C; Jackson 54 (2) L. The two oldest are both strongly conservative, so replacement by Trump would probably not affect the overall L/C “balance”. There is, however, potential to affect the balances in lower courts.
Tom Wigley,
8 Nov., 2024
Your (3) : Well, I sincerely hope so.
Regarding (3)...I worked for a contractor for the U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards--the people who write air pollution regulations--for more than 25 years.
Now that I'm retired with no hope/need to ever work in the air pollution control industry again, I'll say this. It's something I don't think I've explicitly ever written in public before.
It was extremely wrong to allow the U.S. EPA to write regulations limiting carbon dioxide. The 1970 Clean Air Act does *not* support the U.S. EPA's regulating CO2 as a pollutant. And the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are further proof of just how ridiculous the idea is that the Executive Branch can write regulations limiting CO2 emissions.
For those who don't know the history, global warming was simply *not* a concern when the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970. And the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have pages and pages written by Congress, telling the EPA how to regulate 189 "hazardous air pollutants" (e.g. mercury, selenium, dioxins/furans, benzene, etc. etc.).
It's absolutely ridiculous to think that that Congress intended in the Clean Air Act of 1970 for the U.S. EPA to regulate CO2, if it wasn't even mentioned as a pollutant. And it's even more ridiculous considering that the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have sooooo much detailed language on just how the U.S. EPA was to develop regulations for the 189 "hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)", but ***no*** detailed language on how the U.S. EPA was to regulate CO2 emissions. Simple logic says this is insane, because regulation of CO2 is far, far, far more important to the U.S. economy than regulation of the HAPs.
I was extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court allowing the U.S. EPA to regulate CO2. It was a totally illogical decision.
Roger, consistent with THB, thanks for wearing your heart on your sleeve as well as admitting your sentimental bias in your view of the candidates and election outcome. I have even more respect for you now, as I have never observed any bias in your valuable analyses and conclusions. You are the epitome of the honest broker.
I think the current version of the Democrats, like the current version of the canadian liberal party, represent the biggest danger by far to “our democracy” and therefore I’m glad to see part 1 go down in flames.
Hoping they take most of the media down with them.
Looking forward to the next canadian federal election and hoping the Liberals use the opportunity to double down on insane energy and economic policy.
I think Trump won in 2016 and went in with no clue how anything works or how to get anything done.
I think he goes in completely different this time, so we’ll see.
After what we know now, anyone who say there is no “swamp” is simply not credible.
If they can stick to the basics and not get sidetracked with nonsense they can accomplish a lot.
Here’s hoping.
The campaign was full of many memorable moments. Unfortunately, not many were policy discussions and listening to voters shockingly proved more effective than lecturing to them (and worse). Paraphrasing the late Molly Ivin, I am optimistic about America to the point of ridiculousness. Quoting my son, no person or party is stronger than the Constitution and our representative Republic. May you enjoy your travels Roger and may both parties put a little more energy into governing. Best to all.
Roger,
The post and the comments have been enlightening. However, I have one nitpick about what you said toward the end of your piece. Transgender athletes is not a “niche” issue, at least not to women athletes. I’d suggest reaching out to former U of Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines for a chat about this.
Look forward to reading more from you.
Agreed
By niche I simply mean politically niche
Opinion polls show that very few people decide who to vote for based on this issue
I don't think something is "politically niche" if people across a broad spectrum of political ideologies can agree on that something.
And I don't think opinion polls that "show that very few people decide who to vote for based on this issue" make it a "niche" political issue. First of all, I'd bet $100*** that most polls don't even list "transgender participation in sports" as a policy issue, when the polls ask about issues on which voters will vote. And even if some polls *do* list that issue, if the question is asked in terms of "What is the most important issue on which you'll base your vote?"...then of course few people would list it as #1.
But it's very clear-cut issue. For example, if a voter was asked about the economy or peace, who really knows whether Harris or Trump would be better for those two issues? But if it's "Who would be more likely to promote transgender participation in women's sports?" the choice is very clear. And the majority of people--again, across political ideologies--don't want people whose gender at birth is not female to be participating in girls'/womens' sports.
P.S. *** I chose $100, because I need to get back the $100 I lost, when I bet against Donald Trump winning the popular vote by more than 2 percent. ;-)
"A broader argument could be made here about the Democrats recent tendency to take niche issues of the cultural elite and turn them into wedge issues to motivate a small part of their “base.” Republicans tend to do this too (transgender athletes, anyone?),..."
I don't think transgender athletes motivate a "small part of (the Republican) 'base'".
I'm in no way a part of the Republican "base." I vote straight ticket Libertarian. And I'm socially liberal.
But I'm also a former athlete. And I can see probabilities for what they are. Transgender athletes competing in girls'/womens' sports are winning and setting records at extraordinary percentages. Those percentages are far, far beyond chance. That's simply not fair. And I think virtually everyone agrees:
https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/transgender-runner-breaks-two-womens-records-for-new-york-college-sparking-debate-rochester-institute-of-technology-track-and-field-sprint-athlete-sports-ncaa-lgbt
"There are new intellectual currents within the Republicans’ shadow party that are skeptical about the reign of big business and free market ideology and endorse a version of industrial policy. These include the think tank American Compass and the journal American Affairs. We wish them well. "
Oy, vey! Because no one knows what technologies should be favored better than a few people in Washington, DC, using other people's money. :-/