Donald Trump is far right, but he is not a conservative.

by Rod Williams, May 6, 2025- The terms left and right to describe the political spectrum have been with us a long time. Use of these terms originated during the French revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the monarchy to the president's right in the chamber and supporters of the revolution to his left. These terms have become synonymous with liberal and conservative. Generally speaking, one could say a person of the left or a liberal is one favoring social change, government intervention, and regulation. A person of the right is one favoring less government intervention, individual responsibility, and traditional values. 

Of course, these terms have their limits. In America and much of the world, a basket of policy positions makes one a conservative or a liberal. Not everything fits neatly into a basket, however. One can be pro-life and for higher taxes. There is nothing connecting many of the issues that define what is a conservative and what is a liberal. Nevertheless, the terms are a useful shorthand for explaining where one falls on the political spectrum. We kind of know what to expect when one is called a liberal or a conservative or left or right.

Another limitation of the terms is that in America, conservatism does not have the same associations as European conservatism. America has no ancient ethnic identity tied to the land and we have never been a monarchy or had a state religion so some of the things we are attempting to conserve are not the same as European conservatism.

The greatest limitation of the terms left and right, the way I see it, is that it is represented as a spectrum with Communism on the extreme left and Nazism or Fascism on the extreme right. I do not see that spectrum. In America and most democracies, the center-left and the center-right have much more in common with each other than the liberal has in common with the Communist, or the conservative has in common with the Fascist. While they may disagree on many things, liberals and conservatives agree on classical enlightenment principles. I do not believe that one becomes so liberal that they become an advocate for the dictatorship of the proletariat. One does not become so conservative that they become a Nazi.

Both Communist and Nazis or Fascist believe in total government control, require a leader with power to dictate policy and believe the economy should be a function of government direction. While historically, Fascist and Communist saw each other as the enemy, it was much like two similar gangs fighting over territory. The extremes have a lot in common. Mussolini was a man of the left before becoming the Fascist leader of Italy. "Nazi" is National Socialist. 

Neither far left nor far right regimes make room for individualism. The press, freedom of expression, rule of law, and what we think of as human rights must be curtailed. The human will must be suppressed and bent to the will of the state.   

This brings me to my contention that Donald J. Trump is not a conservative but a man of the extreme right. Fascist is a problematic term to describe someone because it is imprecise and because due to overuse it has become pretty much a meaningless pejorative. I am hesitant to label Trump a Fascist but if he is not, he comes close. I do not see Donald Trump as a conservative. Let's take a look at some consistent conservative position since at least the end of World War II and see if they align with the positions of Donald Trump. 

American conservatives believe that America had an essential role to play in the world and conservatives accept America's leadership responsibility. We believe in peace through strength and a strong military. We also believe we should not go it alone; that we need strong alliances. This has not been an exclusively conservative position, of course. For the most part, there has been bi-partisan support for these positions. However, when there have been divisions, it has been Republicans who were the most hawkish and the strongest advocates of a robust foreign policy. The faction that wanted to placate the enemies of freedom and voices for unilateral disarmament could be found as part of the Democrat coalition. 

Trump is weaking America's position in the world by slashing America's soft power, with cuts to USAID and America's trusted news broadcast services and American intelligence services. USAID not only serves mankind and saves lives, but by doing good the U. S. wins friends and gains influence. By slashing USAID we are giving China a huge advantage to win friends. Already, China is gaining widespread influence throughout the developing world through its belt and road initiative. By cutting USAID we are cutting a source of American influence and leaving the field to China. A conservative would not be withdrawing from the world in this manner.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Trump's foreign policy is his abandonment of Ukraine. At present we don't know if we are back to supporting Ukraine of if we are still siding with Russian. It has been utterly disgraceful to watch the President of the United States blame Ukraine for starting the war or for not ending the war when they were the victim of an unprovoked attack by their more powerful neighbor. Trump is trying to bully Ukraine into accepting their annihilation. America's position since the end of World War II has been to side with the victims of aggression. If we did not always come to their defense, one knew our sympathies were with the victim of aggression; we did not side with the aggressor. Neither a liberal nor a conservative president would have taken the pro-Russian position that Donald Trump has taken.

If Russian succeeds in taking Ukraine, it is doubtful it will stop with Ukraine in its quest to reassemble the empire of the USSR. A conservative would know that and realize what is at stake. Trump is also weakening NATO and casting doubt on whether or not we will honor our Article 5 commitment. This is not something one would ever expect from a normal Democrat or Republican president. 

It is hard to know what to make of Trump's foreign policy or what to call it.  It has been referred to as isolationism, but it is not isolationism. I think isolationism is a disastrous policy, but at least one understands it. Trump has talked of turning Gaza into one big, beautiful beach resort. He has threatened to take Greenland by force. He has talked of retaking the Panama Canal. And, he has repeatedly talked of annexing Canada and making it the 51st state. That is hardly isolationism. Trump's foreign policy is certainly not the policy that a liberal or a conservative would recognize. It is something different. It harkens back to an era of might-makes-right and colonialism and imperialism. 

When it comes to economics, Trump's policies are certainly not conservative. Free Trade has been a bedrock principle of conservative thought since at least WWII and a foundational principle of conservative thought since the enlightenment. Conservative look back to enlightenment figures like Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, and Frederic Bastiat for an understanding of the benefits of free trade. Twentieth Century economic thinkers like Henry Hazlitt and Milton Freeman and a host of others have written about and made the arguments for free trade. There is not one single idea more firmly established as a belief of conservatives than a belief in free trade.

Of course, the truth of the benefits of free trade has been accepted by most liberals also. There is pretty much a broad consensus on its benefits. Since the end of WWII both Republican and Democrat administrations have worked for tariff reductions and lowering of trade barriers. When there were those advocating for protectionism, it was usually Democrats pandering to labor unions. They remained a minority of the Democrat coalition however, but protectionism found its home in the Democrat Party. It is hard to believe that now Republicans are the enthusiastic advocates of protectionism. 

Another way in which Donald Trump is not a conservative is his disregard for the constitution. Both Democrats and Republicans take an oath to defend the Constitution, of course. Both Republicans and Democrats have attempted to exceed constitution authority, probably none more than Andrew Jackson and FDR. Republicans used to pride themselves on being the party most committed to felty to the Constitution and Jackson and FDR were used as bad examples. 

In their approach to the Constitution, Republicans tended to be originalist or strict constructionist believing the constitution should be interpreted to mean what the founders intended it to mean. Liberals tended to believe in a living constitution that could be interpreted to reflect contemporary circumstances and values. Liberals believe the constitution is much more fluid and flexible, while conservatives believe it is more rigid and fixed in meaning. Given these attitudes toward the Constitution, one would expect a Republican president to be more committed to the constitution than a Democrat president. 

Donald Trump treats the Constitution more like a suggestion and sees it as an impediment to enacting the policies he sees himself as elected to fix. In violation of the Constitution, he has refused to spend money appropriated by Congress and he has repeatedly denied persons the due process to which the Constitution entitles them. Most telling, he attempted a coup on January 6th to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. That is not the actions of a conservative president.

Conservatism is about more than a set of policies, but it is also a set of attitudes and sensibilities. Conservatives believe in ordered liberty. Conservatives believe in a cautious, measured approach to governance. We believe in order over chaos. Change should come slow and be measured. We have respect for what has come before and believe in inherited wisdom. We value societal and government institutions and practices. We believe in measured reform rather than impulsive revolution. Trump violates all of these norms.

On foreign policy, economic policy, respect for institutions and the Constitution, or attitudes and sensibilities Donald Trump is not a conservative. In addition to all this he embraces the support of far-right fringe figures and thinkers. He is comfortable with weird conspiracy theorist like Laura Loomer. On the world stage he seems to admire strong leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán of Hungary.  Even planning a big parade with displays of America's might on the day of the Leaders birthday, is not something one would expect to see in America from anyone of the center-left or center-right. It is not normal. Trump's actions and attitudes is not what one would expect from a conservative. Donald Trump is an authoritarian and a supporter of oligarchy.  He is the kind of far-right leader we have seen in various countries throughout history and the world. 

Donald Trump is far right, but he is not a conservative. 

Top Stories

FACT CHECK: Is Ford Moving Four of Its Factories Back to the US As a Result of Trump Tariffs?

 

by Rod Williams, April 4, 2025- The image to the right has shown up on my Facebook page a lot recently. As you can see, it claims that Ford is moving four factories back to the US, along with 25,000 high paying jobs apparently due to Trump Tariffs.

There is no basis in fact to this claim. Check Your Facts says the claim is false. They go on to say:

The claim is false and originally stems from a March 26 post shared by “America’s Last Line of Defense,” which is a satirical Facebook page. The Facebook page describes itself as “the flagship of the ALLOD network of trollery and propaganda for cash” before reiterating “nothing on this page is real.”

Likewise, Check Your Fact did not find a press release on Ford’s website or a statement shared on its verified social media accounts repeating the claim. Trump also does not appear to have publicly commented on the claim via his personal or government X accounts, his TRUTH Social account, or his verified social media accounts. (RELATED: Viral X Image Does Not Show Authentic Truth Social Post From Trump About ‘Ending Tariffs’)

In addition, Check Your Fact did not find any credible news reports to support the claim. If Ford had truly decided to move four of its factories back to the U.S. as the Threads post claims, multiple media outlets would’ve covered it, yet none have.

Actually, the opposite is true. On March 31, Snopes debunked the claim, tracing its origin to the same satirical Facebook page.

I know this will not influence the diehard super MAGA crowd. If Trump told them, it was midnight in the noon of the day, they would find a way to believe him. Faith can be hard to shake. Remember all the people who drank the Jim Jones Kool-Aid. What we are seeing with the Trump phenomena is not much different. However, not everyone who voted for Trump parked their brain at the door and we need to continue to counter falsehood with the truth. 

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Broken Windows and the Broken Logic of Trade Wars

President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

by Scott A. Burns, Caleb S. Fuller, The Independent Institute, May 6, 2025- Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick made headlines last month when he vowed to bring iPhone assembly jobs “back” to America. “The army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little screws to make iPhones—that kind of thing is going to come to America!” Secretary Lutnick enthusiastically predicted in an April 6 interview. 

The American public, however, seemed less enthusiastic. Within hours, the internet was ablaze with AI-generated images of armies of teens and portly, middle-aged Americans sitting side-by-side on the assembly line in giant sweatshops laboring to screw tiny screws into iPhones.

Undeterred, Secretary Lutnick doubled down on this promise last week: “This is the new model, where you work in these plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here, and your grandkids work here!” 

Secretary Lutnick might’ve chosen a poor example to rally Americans to the factory front lines. Still, economists struggle to explain the fallacy behind promises to “restore American manufacturing” and “bring jobs home.” It’s hard to convince ordinary people that free trade is good by relying on abstract concepts like “opportunity costs” and “comparative advantage.” It’s especially challenging when protectionists can point to specific jobs being “saved” and factories being “reshored” as evidence of the virtues of restricting trade. The “costs” of trade are highly visible—workers losing jobs, factories being shut down. The benefits, in contrast, are hidden and easily taken for granted.

Thankfully for us, there’s Frédéric Bastiat, the greatest economic storyteller of all time. No one was better at explaining dense economic ideas in ways a popular audience could understand.

When we think of Bastiat’s work on trade, most think of his Petition of the Candlemakers—a scathing satirical letter penned to the French Parliament in 1845 on behalf of the Candlemakers guild that lobbied for a ban on imports of cheap light from their biggest foreign competitor, the sun. Or, maybe they call to mind Bastiat’s parable of the “negative railroad.” If regular railroads bring things to us, “negative railroads” (tariffs) keep the things we want far away. However, arguably, his best case against protectionism was hidden in his “parable of the broken window” from his seminal 1850 essay, That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.

The parable runs like this. Suppose a band of troublemaking kids hurl a rock through a storekeeper’s window. At first, the storekeeper is devastated about having to replace his window. But suppose a (bad) economist approaches him and says: “Don’t fret, there’s a silver lining in this dark cloud! The $1,000 you spend replacing the window will create a job for a local glazier. That glazier can then use that income to buy a suit, thus creating income for a tailor, and so on!” The ultimate result of this broken window, he giddily concludes, will be to create jobs and increase economic growth! 

It’s easy to see why journalists so often fall for this tall tale. But to the trained economist’s eye, the fallacy at its heart is easy to detect. The (bad) economist is ignoring the opportunity cost of the $1,000 that is spent repairing the window. In other words, he or she is neglecting everything else the shopkeeper could have bought with that $1,000 if his window hadn’t been smashed. Perhaps he could’ve spent it on a new bike, thus creating a job and income for the bike store owner. That bike store owner could’ve spent this income on new shoes, thus creating income for a cobbler, and so on. 

The moral of the story is simple: destruction doesn’t create wealth. Destruction only destroys wealth. In this case, the economy is made poorer to the tune of one broken window (or, in dollar terms, roughly $1,000). This concept has become popularized as the “broken window fallacy.” 

Paradoxically, this fallacy is so obvious that it’s easy to fall prey to it. A simple reductio ad absurdum exposes its lunacy. If destruction creates wealth, then we should celebrate natural disasters and equip an army of misfit teens with rocks so they can “stimulate” the economy by smashing windows. But keep an eye out, and you’ll find plenty of intelligent people committing it when they discuss the economic impact of wars, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters like the recent California wildfires. 

The reason why so many commit it, Bastiat argues, is because they fixate on “that which is seen” and neglect “that which is not seen.” That which is “seen,” in this case, is the spending to replace the window and all the jobs that are created from that spending. It’s easy to point to the jobs created for the glazier and tailor to see how they benefited. What’s harder for the economically untrained eye to detect is the “unseen”—all the jobs and wealth that would’ve been created if not for the spending that must now go towards replacing the broken window. In this counterfactual, our shopkeeper could’ve had $1,000 and an intact window. Instead, he had to spend $1,000 replacing a perfectly good window.

Although it’s not typically used in the context of discussing international trade, Bastiat’s parable beautifully illustrates how tariffs and trade wars destroy rather than create wealth. 

Economists since Adam Smith, David Hume, and David Ricardo have argued that trade increases society’s wealth by enabling us to specialize in what we’re most efficient at making (i.e. what we can produce at the lowest opportunity cost), then trade with others for what they’re most efficient at making. This is just as true at the macro-level for nations as it is at the micro-level for individuals. 

Americans, for instance, may very well be better than Vietnamese workers at making textiles—we may be able to produce more textiles per worker, especially since our workers tend to be “higher-skilled.” In economic parlance, we’d have an “absolute advantage” over Vietnam in textiles. Nevertheless, Vietnamese workers may be more efficient than us—they may be able to make textiles at a lower cost per unit. Vietnam has a “comparative advantage” in textiles when it can produce them at a lower opportunity cost compared to other goods. In this context, “cost” refers to the alternative products that must be sacrificed to focus on textile production. For the United States, this cost is high because the country excels in high-tech industries and services. In contrast, Vietnam faces lower costs for textiles since high-tech industries are not viable alternatives for them.

The fact that Vietnam is the lower-cost producer of textiles means that they should specialize in them, even if we could do it ourselves. This frees American workers, who tend to be higher-skilled, to specialize in making higher-valued products where we possess a comparative advantage. We can then use our higher incomes from making these products to buy more stuff from Vietnam and elsewhere. 

The result of specialization and trade is that both Americans and the Vietnamese are made better off. Vietnamese workers secure middle-class textile jobs that allow them to escape the grinding poverty of subsistence agriculture or manual labor. Since Americans can now buy textiles more cheaply from Vietnam instead of making them ourselves, more of our high-skilled labor is unleashed to work in higher-quality jobs like software development or computer programming. Both sides win from trade. 

How does this relate to Bastiat’s broken window fallacy and today’s trade war? If trading with Vietnam and other nations makes American workers and consumers better off, then eroding this global division of labor by breaking off trade with them makes us poorer. Sure, some factories may be “reshored” to America. A (bad) economist is sure to point out that these factories will “create jobs” for some Americans. But any good economist will tell you that these jobs come at a very high (opportunity) cost —namely, all the higher-quality jobs that Americans could have specialized in if not for these trade restrictions. These costs are difficult to see and hard to quantify, as is all the wealth that could’ve been created through trade. But they’re real. Á la Bastiat’s broken window parable, the net result of protectionism is fewer high-quality jobs for Americans and a smaller economic pie. 

More than 175 years later, Bastiat’s lesson rings truer than ever. Breaking trade relations, like breaking windows, isn’t some “weird new trick” for creating wealth. It’s an age-old recipe for destroying wealth by shattering the global division of labor that created it in the first place. 

Today’s news cycle is a great example. When Secretary Lutnick gloats about bringing iPhone factories back to the U.S., he’s essentially bragging about creating jobs for glaziers by breaking the windows of our global supply chains. In literal terms, he’s boasting about diverting millions of U.S. workers away from higher-skilled jobs into low-skill assembly line jobs with much lower pay. That’s a tough sell to an American public that isn’t exactly pining for a return to the assembly line, as evidenced by the 500,000 domestic manufacturing jobs that U.S. employers can’t fill.

According to a Cato Institute study, 80 percent of Americans want more manufacturing jobs in the U.S., but 73 percent say they don’t want to work them. As the great economic thinker Dave Chappelle bluntly put it: “I want to buy iPhones, not make them!” Or, as another group of great economic thinkers put it, somewhat more abstractly: “What is desired is specialization in production but diversity in consumption.” 

Nineteenth-century economist Henry George brilliantly explained the self-defeating nature of protectionism by likening it to a self-imposed blockade: “protectionists seek to do to our own nation in times of peace what our enemies seek to do to us in times of war.” We can all agree that a naval blockade is an effective way to suffocate a rival’s economy (for evidence, see the Confederacy’s economic collapse during the Civil War or Germany’s during World War I). Why, then, would we ever think that cutting ourselves off from foreign trade by, in effect, imposing a naval blockade on our own citizens would be a recipe for prosperity? 

Contrary to what protectionists like Lutnick argue, there’s nothing patriotic or “America First” about trade wars that destroy the international division of labor that has lifted millions of Americans and billions around the world out of poverty. Any effort to destroy or erect barriers to this international division of labor invariably makes us poorer, not richer. Just like you can’t make an individual richer by cutting off their access to trade partners, you can’t make a nation rich through autarky. The net result of Lutnick’s master plan to reallocate thousands of American workers away from high-skill jobs and into low-skill manufacturing jobs would be to reduce their real incomes and lower U.S. GDP. 

To see this, we needn’t time travel back to the halcyon days of Adam Smith and David Ricardo or Frédéric Bastiat and Henry George. We need only harken back to President Trump’s 2018 tariffs on steel and washing machines. Just as economic theory predicts, steel and washing machine prices rose sharply (as did complementary goods like dryers). Thus, U.S. taxpayers indirectly bore the lion’s share of this tax burden in the form of higher prices. According to the Federal Reserve, these tariffs imposed an indirect tax on Americans of $80 billion while bringing in only $82 million in tax revenue. Perhaps most shocking (especially given the Trump Administration’s stated objective both then and now of reducing trade deficits), the U.S. trade deficit increased from $517 billion to $785 billion in the five years after these tariffs took effect, and our manufacturing trade deficit rose by 60 percent. 

Most germane to Bastiat’s lesson, though, was the considerable unseen costs these tariffs imposed on the economy. Although the tariffs “saved” or “created” an estimated 1,800 domestic steel jobs (the “seen” effect), they did so at a cost of $900,000 per job (the “unseen” effect). That’s a hefty price tag for replacing a proverbial broken window. All told, the tariffs reduced U.S. GDP by 0.2 percent in 2018 (or by about $50 billion) and by an estimated 4 percent over the next three years. 

Fast forward seven years and President Trump’s latest tariffs are orders of magnitude larger. His 2018 tariffs only directly targeted a handful of nations and industries, affecting $360 billion in traded goods. His “Liberation Day” tariffs, in stark contrast, affect more than $3.5 trillion—a 10-fold increase. The Tax Foundation estimates the latest tariffs amount to an annual tax hike of $1,300 per U.S. household (who will bear the lion’s share of their burden in higher prices). The Wharton School projects they’ll lower domestic wages by 7 percent and U.S. GDP by 6 percent in the long run. If the 2018 “trade war” was a tiny tremor for the global economy, today’s is a massive earthquake. 

The aftershocks of this seismic event are expected to hit American shores this month. The last cargo ships from China that weren’t subject to crippling tariffs arrived on the Pacific coast last week. The countdown to spiraling prices and inefficient supply chain reshuffling begins this May. 

Many firms have just begun raising their prices in response to these tariffs. Companies like Amazon have even discussed displaying how much they’ve had to mark up their prices due to tariffs. The biggest victims of the tariffs, however, aren’t multibillion-dollar corporations like Amazon. They are small businesses. Smaller companies tend to have narrower profit margins. They also have fewer alternatives to buying from foreign suppliers; vertical integration isn’t exactly feasible for most small-to-medium-sized firms. Because they employ fewer workers on a per-company basis, they also hold far less sway to lobby the Administration for special exemptions. 

In the coming weeks, readers should gird themselves for a tidal wave of “positive” headlines about factories being reshored and manufacturing jobs “coming home.” But remember: this is just a modern-day example of Bastiat’s fallacy of fixating on the “seen” but neglecting the “unseen.” To Bastiat, these headlines may as well read: “Broken window creates glazier jobs; economy booms!” Sure, some factories may be reshored. But that just means more U.S. workers will be diverted away from high-quality jobs into low-quality jobs. The net effect will be fewer jobs and lower growth. 

Before they break any more windows, the Trump administration would be wise to heed the advice of the 1,800 economists who’ve called out its quixotic trade war for the farce that it is. If not, they’ll be stuck picking up the pieces of a broken economy and claiming it is a blessing in disguise. 

Top Stories

George Orwell is a Useful Guide to What we’re Witnessing.

David Brooks

by David Brooks, The Atlantic, published April 14, 2025- George Orwell is a useful guide to what we’re witnessing. He understood that it is possible for people to seek power without having any vision of the good. “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake,” an apparatchik says in 1984. “We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.” How is power demonstrated? By making others suffer. Orwell’s character continues: “Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.”

Russell Vought, Donald Trump’s budget director, sounds like he walked straight out of 1984. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains,” he said of federal workers, speaking at an event in 2023. “We want to put them in trauma.”

Since coming back to the White House, Trump has caused suffering among Ukrainians, suffering among immigrants who have lived here for decades, suffering among some of the best people I know. Many of my friends in Washington are evangelical Christians who found their vocation in public service—fighting sex trafficking, serving the world’s poor, protecting America from foreign threats, doing biomedical research to cure disease. They are trying to live lives consistent with the gospel of mercy and love. Trump has devastated their work. He isn’t just declaring war on “wokeness”; he’s declaring war on Christian service—on any kind of service, really.

If there is an underlying philosophy driving Trump, it is this: Morality is for suckers. To borrow from Thucydides, the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must. This is the logic of bullies everywhere. And if there is a consistent strategy, it is this: Day after day, the administration works to create a world where ruthless people can thrive. That means destroying any institution or arrangement that might check the strongman’s power. The rule of law, domestic or international, restrains power, so it must be eviscerated. Inspectors general, judge advocate general officers, oversight mechanisms, and watchdog agencies are a potential restraint on power, so they must be fired or neutered. The truth itself is a restraint on power, so it must be abandoned. Lying becomes the language of the state.

Rod's Comment, May 6, 2025- What we are witnessing is nor normal. Ever since the start of Trump's second term, I have thought we were living 1984. The raw display of power, the double-speak, the switching positions and persuading people it was our position all along. All of this seems very familiar. If you have never read 1984 or if it has been a long time, it would be a good time to pick it up. 

Top Stories

To Watch the Loss of Your Nation’s Honor is Embarrassing and Painful.

by Rod Williams, May 2, 2025 - President Trump is taking America to a place we may have never been before, or so it seems. Maybe Andrew Jackson was as bad, or worse, but we don't know yet because Trump's still has three more years and nine months do whatever it is he is going to do. It appears that we are heading toward a sheading of the Constitution and the norms that have preserved our democracy. It feels to me like we are going down the path of Argentina, or Orban's Hungary or any other number of countries that traded prosperity and democracy for autocracy and authoritarianism. 

The hardcore MAGA are of course happy with the direction we are headed and celebrate the cruelty, chaos, indecency, and the strong man rule unrestrained by concepts like the co-equal branches of government and the rule of law.  To those of us who have not joined the Trump cult, we are alarmed as we daily watch our democracy slip away. 

Both liberals and traditional conservatives are appalled and alarmed by Trump's rise to power, the violation of norms and constitutional restraints. While both liberals and traditional conservatives are appalled at what is happening, I think the conservatives feel something the liberals do not. The traditional conservatives feel betrayed.

A lot of liberals, I think, view Trump as a culmination of something they have been opposing all of their lives. When you always viewed Republicans as evil, then Trump is just eviller. Recently, I shared a Facebook meme that said something to the effect, "I did not know I would be spending my advanced years fighting fascism." Admittedly, "fascism," is an ill-defined term and I am not sure it actually applies. "Fascism" has become a meaningless pejorative. Maybe I should not have shared the meme. Nevertheless, I think the concept of the meme reflects what many of us feel. What we are experiencing is much different than anything experienced before in our lifetime. If it is not fascism, it is something close to it. A close acquaintance of mine replied to my sharing of the meme by saying something like, "I have been fighting fascism my whole life." 

When you also thought Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and ever Republican ever nominated was also evil or "fascist," then Trump is just more of the same but more so. When you revered Ronald Reagan and worked to elect people like George Bush and John McCain and Mitt Romney, and worked to advance a conservative ideology, Donald Trump feels like a betrayal of everything you ever believe in.

Thankfully there are still some faithful conservatives, people like George Will and Bill Crystal and David Brooks and the people who work for some of the conservative journals and think tanks who are remaining true to their conservative principle. Unfortunately, there are far too few of them.  Many people who still think of themselves as conservative have either embraced Trumpism or are too timid to oppose it. 

David Brooks writing in the most recent issue of The Atlantic expresses what I feel more than anything I have read. Below is an excerpt.

David Brooks

Charles de Gaulle began his war memoirs with this sentence: “All my life I have had a certain idea about France.” Well, all my life I have had a certain idea about America. I have thought of America as a deeply flawed nation that is nonetheless a force for tremendous good in the world. From Abraham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan and beyond, Americans fought for freedom and human dignity and against tyranny; we promoted democracy, funded the Marshall Plan, and saved millions of people across Africa from HIV and AIDS. When we caused harm—Vietnam, Iraq—it was because of our overconfidence and naivete, not evil intentions.

Until January 20, 2025, I didn’t realize how much of my very identity was built on this faith in my country’s goodness—on the idea that we Americans are partners in a grand and heroic enterprise, that our daily lives are ennobled by service to that cause. Since January 20, as I have watched America behave vilely—toward our friends in Canada and Mexico, toward our friends in Europe, toward the heroes in Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office—I’ve had trouble describing the anguish I’ve experienced. Grief? Shock? Like I’m living through some sort of hallucination? Maybe the best description for what I’m feeling is moral shame: To watch the loss of your nation’s honor is embarrassing and painful.

To read the full article, follow this link.  

Top Stories

You have been reappraised. Now what?

 

You have been reappraised. Now what?

Everyone is talking property taxes. Here is what you need to know.

First, it is important to know that the two major sources of revenue for Metro are Property Taxes and the Optional Sales Taxes. In the 2024/25 budget, the Property Tax provided 51.4% of our revenue. The Optional Sales taxes provided 22% of our revenue.

Property taxes are determined by

1) Assessed Value from the County Assessor and

2) Property Tax rate as determined by the Mayor and Metro Council.

1. Assessed Value

Per state law, the Assessor's Office must reappraise all properties every 4 years. The appraisal is an estimate of the most probable selling price of a property. Condition of structures, construction type,. age and land features are all considered.

From that assessed value appraisal, there is a percentage of the value that is taxable. Statutory assessment percentages, based on use, are applied. For residential use, the percentage is 25%.

So, for example, a residence appraised at $1,000,000 would have an assessment value of 25%, or $250,000. Property taxes are calculated on that $250,000 value.

2. Property Tax Rate

The actual amount a property owner will be subject to pay is formed by the rate decided upon by the Mayor and City Council.

The current property tax rate is 3.25% per $100 of assessed value.

Using the example above, taxes on $250,000 assessed value, at a rate of 3.25% would be $8,125.00.

The mayor has proposed a new tax rate of 2.814%. On its face, the rate is lower than the current rate of 3.25%.

However, our average reappraisals have resulted in approximately 52% increases in District 23. So, even though the percentage rate may be lower, the resulting tax amount will be significantly higher.

Using our $1,000,000 home example, a 52% appraisal increase means the property is now appraised at $1,520,000. The 25% assessment (taxable portion) is now $380,000 .

Applying the mayor's new tax rate of 2.8145% would result in a tax bill of $10,693.20. Taxes are higher, even though the rate is lower, because of the huge increase in appraised values. This is actually a 31.6% increase from last year's tax rate.

A 13.5% reduction in tax rate has no positive effect against a massive increase in appraised values.

HOW TO APPEAL

If you feel like your appraisal is incorrect, you can file an appeal. How To Appeal-Nashville Property Assessor Appeals are due by May 9. Follow the link for the process to file your appeal.

So, where do we go from here?

The mayor submitted his proposal for a property tax increase when he presented his State of Metro speech last week.

The Metro Council Budget Committee reviews all department expenses and proposed department changes through a series of meetings. The council considers community input at Metro public hearings on the budget. Council Members can recommend changes to the Chair of Budget Finance Committee. After days of review and discussions, the Finance Chair can recommend a substitute budget based on council input. The substitute budget would include recommendations from both department expenses, property tax rates and other revenue sources.

An important note is to recognize that only the Mayor's proposed budget and that of the Finance Chair are amendable. Any other budget offered is not subject to any discussion or amendment. Therefore, it is very difficult to provide an alternative budget that 40 CM's can agree on. If the budget proposed by the Finance Chair is not approved by June 30, it automatically defaults to the Mayor's Budget.

Top Stories

Republicans for Inflation

by Kevin D. Williamson, The Dispatch, May 5, 2025- Republicans have a weird new proposition for the American voter: fewer choices, higher prices.

That doesn’t seem like an obvious political winner. ....

I don’t care very much about “Made in the USA.” I do care a good deal about “Made in China.”

Because I am interested in trade issues, I pay attention, probably more than the average person does, to where the consumer goods I buy are made. Consumer goods are only a small part of international trade, of course—one of the reasons Americans’ have warped views of trade is that they see “Made in China” on cheap bicycle pumps at Walmart but they don’t see “Made in the USA” on the custom-machined titanium parts used in medical devices and aerospace equipment, and they don’t think about our enormous trade in services. They just see some $4 flip-flops and think about how the Chinese are stealing all of our good jobs at the $4 flip-flop factory. (read more)

Top Stories

Robby Starbuck Sues Meta

Robby Starbuck

The Pamphleteer, May 5, 2025- Conservative activist and 2022 Tennessee US Congressional District 5 candidate, Robby Starbuck, is suing Meta over artificial intelligence chatbot disinformation. “This all started with Meta’s AI falsely claiming that I was charged with a crime from January 6th but… I wasn’t even in DC that day (I was in TN) and I’ve never been charged with a crime IN MY LIFE,” Starbuck posted on X last week. 

According to Starbuck, Meta was notified about the defamation issues last year, but nothing was done to address them until Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer, Joel Kaplan, apologized for the AI last Tuesday. 

"It’s too late to solve this with an apology,” Starbuck told Fox News Digital. “It’s been nearly a year. People doxxed my kids." The outcome of the suit is expected to have major implications for how the court handles the spread of disinformation and misinformation through artificial intelligence online.

Rod's Comment: You may recall Robby Starbuck attempted to run as a Republican for Congress in 2022 and was disqualified by the GOP State Executive Committe for failing to meet the test for a bonafide Republican. He sued the Republican Party and lost. Since then, Starbucks has successfully campaigned to convince several companies, including Ford and Lowe's, to drop their DEI policies. For previous Disgruntled Republican post regarding Starbucks, follow this link.  

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

I, Pencil

 by Rod Williams, May 4, 2025- Everyday, I see news articles and pundits supportive of curtailing free trade.  My Facebook feed is full of post by people expressing support for made-in-America. They lament that few things are made in America, they want Amazon to have a select feature to filter for things made in America, say they will only buy agriculture products made in America, and dream of all the jobs to be created when we ban imports. 

The reason for this support for everything we consume being made in America I think is mostly just an extreme version of nationalism, a kind of hooray for our team. I think that they also mistakenly but sincerely think it will make us better off.  This is an irrational prejudice, not a well thought out economic theory. Anyone with even a little understanding of economics knows more trade leads to more economic growth and leads to better standards of living around the world. 

I am reposting a famous essay that explains some economic truths. One who has never taken a course in economics can understand this and see the benefits of trade, economic cooperation, specialization, and free markets.

I, Pencil

By Leonard E. Read

I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write.

Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that’s all I do.

You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery —more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious attitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, the wise G. K. Chesterton observed, “We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders.”

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that’s too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn’t it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.

Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye—there’s some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.

Innumerable Antecedents

Just as you cannot trace your family tree back very far, so is it impossible for me to name and explain all my antecedents. But I would like to suggest enough of them to impress upon you the richness and complexity of my background.

My family tree begins with what in fact is a tree, a cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern California and Oregon. Now contemplate all the saws and trucks and rope and the countless other gear used in harvesting and carting the cedar logs to the railroad siding. Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication: the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls, the cookery and the raising of all the foods. Why, untold thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers drink!

The logs are shipped to a mill in San Leandro, California. Can you imagine the individuals who make flat cars and rails and railroad engines and who construct and install the communication systems incidental thereto? These legions are among my antecedents.

Consider the millwork in San Leandro. The cedar logs are cut into small, pencil-length slats less than one-fourth of an inch in thickness. These are kiln dried and then tinted for the same reason women put rouge on their faces. People prefer that I look pretty, not a pallid white. The slats are waxed and kiln dried again. How many skills went into the making of the tint and the kilns, into supplying the heat, the light and power, the belts, motors, and all the other things a mill requires? Sweepers in the mill among my ancestors? Yes, and included are the men who poured the concrete for the dam of a Pacific Gas & Electric Company hydroplant which supplies the mill’s power!

Don’t overlook the ancestors present and distant who have a hand in transporting sixty carloads of slats across the nation.

Once in the pencil factory—$4,000,000 in machinery and building, all capital accumulated by thrifty and saving parents of mine—each slat is given eight grooves by a complex machine, after which another machine lays leads in every other slat, applies glue, and places another slat atop—a lead sandwich, so to speak. Seven brothers and I are mechanically carved from this “wood-clinched” sandwich.

My “lead” itself—it contains no lead at all—is complex. The graphite is mined in Ceylon [Sri Lanka]. Consider these miners and those who make their many tools and the makers of the paper sacks in which the graphite is shipped and those who make the string that ties the sacks and those who put them aboard ships and those who make the ships. Even the lighthouse keepers along the way assisted in my birth—and the harbor pilots.

The graphite is mixed with clay from Mississippi in which ammonium hydroxide is used in the refining process. Then wetting agents are added such as sulfonated tallow—animal fats chemically reacted with sulfuric acid. After passing through numerous machines, the mixture finally appears as endless extrusions—as from a sausage grinder—cut to size, dried, and baked for several hours at 1,850 degrees Fahrenheit. To increase their strength and smoothness the leads are then treated with a hot mixture which includes candelilla wax from Mexico, paraffin wax, and hydrogenated natural fats.

My cedar receives six coats of lacquer. Do you know all the ingredients of lacquer? Who would think that the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil are a part of it? They are. Why, even the processes by which the lacquer is made a beautiful yellow involve the skills of more persons than one can enumerate!

Observe the labeling. That’s a film formed by applying heat to carbon black mixed with resins. How do you make resins and what, pray, is carbon black?

My bit of metal—the ferrule—is brass. Think of all the persons who mine zinc and copper and those who have the skills to make shiny sheet brass from these products of nature. Those black rings on my ferrule are black nickel. What is black nickel and how is it applied? The complete story of why the center of my ferrule has no black nickel on it would take pages to explain.

Then there’s my crowning glory, inelegantly referred to in the trade as “the plug,” the part man uses to erase the errors he makes with me. An ingredient called “factice” is what does the erasing. It is a rubber-like product made by reacting rapeseed oil from the Dutch East Indies [Indonesia] with sulfur chloride. Rubber, contrary to the common notion, is only for binding purposes. Then, too, there are numerous vulcanizing and accelerating agents. The pumice comes from Italy; and the pigment which gives “the plug” its color is cadmium sulfide.

No One Knows

Does anyone wish to challenge my earlier assertion that no single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me?

Actually, millions of human beings have had a hand in my creation, no one of whom even knows more than a very few of the others. Now, you may say that I go too far in relating the picker of a coffee berry in far-off Brazil and food growers elsewhere to my creation; that this is an extreme position. I shall stand by my claim. There isn’t a single person in all these millions, including the president of the pencil company, who contributes more than a tiny, infinitesimal bit of know-how. From the standpoint of know-how the only difference between the miner of graphite in Ceylon and the logger in Oregon is in the type of know-how. Neither the miner nor the logger can be dispensed with, any more than can the chemist at the factory or the worker in the oil field—paraffin being a by-product of petroleum.

Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items.

No Master Mind

There is a fact still more astounding: The absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work. This is the mystery to which I earlier referred.

It has been said that “only God can make a tree.” Why do we agree with this? Isn’t it because we realize that we ourselves could not make one? Indeed, can we even describe a tree? We cannot, except in superficial terms. We can say, for instance, that a certain molecular configuration manifests itself as a tree. But what mind is there among men that could even record, let alone direct, the constant changes in molecules that transpire in the life span of a tree? Such a feat is utterly unthinkable!

I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human masterminding! Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree.

The above is what I meant when writing, “If you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing.” For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand— that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive master-minding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith.

Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn’t know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation’s mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of faith in free people—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental “masterminding.”

Testimony Galore

If I, Pencil, were the only item that could offer testimony on what men and women can accomplish when free to try, then those with little faith would have a fair case. However, there is testimony galore; it’s all about us and on every hand. Mail delivery is exceedingly simple when compared, for instance, to the making of an automobile or a calculating machine or a grain combine or a milling machine or to tens of thousands of other things. Delivery? Why, in this area where men have been left free to try, they deliver the human voice around the world in less than one second; they deliver an event visually and in motion to any person’s home when it is happening; they deliver 150 passengers from Seattle to Baltimore in less than four hours; they deliver gas from Texas to one’s range or furnace in New York at unbelievably low rates and without subsidy; they deliver each four pounds of oil from the Persian Gulf to our Eastern Seaboard—halfway around the world—for less money than the government charges for delivering a one-ounce letter across the street!

The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society’s legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth.

Top Stories