“In March, Democrats faced a decision: shut down the government over the litany of lawless actions and usurped spending powers by the Trump administration, or fall in line. They decided not to fight, reinforcing the fundamental fault lines in current-day Democratic politics between weakness and fortitude. Fast-forward six months and Democrats have the same decision. The government spending that was extended for the full fiscal year by a continuing resolution in March runs out at the end of the month. Twelve appropriations bills aren’t going to be passed in a few weeks, so some stopgap continuing resolution will probably be offered for a vote. Any spending bill, needed by September 30, will require 60 votes in the Senate (because of the Senate filibuster), meaning Democrats will have to supply some of them if it’s going to pass.” (09/08/25)
“Want to move people? Focus on principles, not tactics. An essay about finding a real third way, using the simplest and most persuasive talk there is.” (09/07/25)
“On face value, many observers took Trump’s pledge to mean a more hawkish posture by this administration with some on the left and right having a negative reaction to the possible change. He also appears to associate the old name with winning, like a talisman. Unfortunately, aside from Persian Gulf I, most Americans associate World War II as the last time they associate America with ‘winning’ a major war. But for others, even non-interventionists and foreign policy realists, the name change is just more honest.” (09/05/25)
Source: Future of Freedom Foundation
by Jacob G Hornberger
“There is one good part of President Trump’s war on immigrants: He is proving a point I have long been making — that to win the war on immigrants, it is necessary to destroy freedom in America. Thus, with his war on immigrants, Trump is unwittingly putting Americans, including pro-immigration-control libertarians, in an interesting quandary: Should one continue to support America’s system of immigration controls even though it means forever giving up hope of living in a genuinely free society or should one instead support a system of open borders with the aim of achieving a genuinely free society?” (09/05/25)
“‘When [David] Graeber died, five years ago today, he was just about the most important public intellectual in the world’ asserts Thomas Peermohamed Lambert (‘David Graeber: the Left’s lost hero,’ UnHerd, September 2). An unlikely position for the author of tomes covering ‘some of the most mind-numbing subjects,’ from the originations of finance to managerial administration, whose defiant anti-authoritarianism apparently mapped ‘a kind of ‘road not taken’ for the political Left’ which has since veered ever more sharply into pinning all their hopes and fears on the next election.” (09/06/25)
“Trump has repeatedly linked tariffs to the country’s wealth. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he insisted the U.S. was at its wealthiest relative to the rest of the world ‘from 1870 to 1913. That was our richest because we collected tariffs from foreign countries that came in and took our jobs and took our money, took our everything, but they charged tariffs.’ But if tariffs are linked to prosperity, it’s an inverse relationship, according to a recent report on America’s declining economic freedom for Canada’s Fraser Institute. … ‘In the high-tariff countries, average GDP per capita is just $9,703 per year,’ while ‘in low-tariff countries, it is $43,502 per year.'” (09/05/25)
“The U.S. has long sought to parlay India’s animosity toward China into a wedge between India and the multipolar Global South. But three recent tactics of the Trump administration have undermined that strategy. Perhaps the most consequential was the punishing tariffs the U.S. imposed on India. Starting at 25 percent as punishment for unfair trade practices, they ballooned to 50 percent after India refused to bend on the issue of Russian oil — a level that China, the largest purchaser of Russian oil, has been spared. An earlier misstep was the embarrassing attempt by the Trump administration to take credit for a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. … Another sticking point is Washington’s improving relations with India’s rival Pakistan and the plausible suspicions that the current Pakistani government came to power with U.S. assistance.” (09/05/25)
“In countries ruled by a powerful political elite, the daily struggles of ordinary people are often overlooked. Not so in Indonesia over recent days. Street protests that began Aug. 25 in the capital against excessive perks for lawmakers spread nationwide a few days later. The cause of the new outrage: A police vehicle ran over a motorbike delivery rider caught up in one of the protests. People in the world’s fourth-most-populous nation rely heavily on nearly 3 million ride-hailing drivers to deliver packages and passengers. Known as ojol, they are visible symbols of the urban lower class. They are often seen hanging together in green jackets near roadside food stalls, waiting for their next online trip request. The reaction to the killing, in a country already distrustful of the police and the elite, was both swift and unusual.” (09/05/25)
“I can remember feeling shocked when I first heard about the Milgram experiment. Some psychology students told me about the experiment about 60 years ago, while I was at university. At that time, the findings of the experiment caused me to question my view of human nature. I was brought up to hold the view that it is natural for humans to be kind and humane. That view is consistent with the derivation of the words, ‘kind” and “humane.’ It is also the view I hold now. The findings of the Milgram experiment seemed to suggest, however, that a less positive view of human nature might be more accurate.” (09/07/25)
Source: Foundation for Economic Education
by Sergio Martínez
“Like many countries with an aging population, Mexico is facing a pension crisis. In just the last five years, the universal pension for older adults quadrupled its budget. Coupled with low growth, the ever-rising cash transfers and subsidies have become a major drag on the country’s economy. Welfare payments to individuals—such as the universal pension for older adults, disability pensions, and student stipends—have grown at a pace that outstripped investment in infrastructure, education, and security. These programs are politically attractive: beneficiaries can clearly see where the money goes, while the returns of better public infrastructure, or of a more effective police force, are harder to measure. The result is a fiscal structure that privileges visible redistribution over the less glamorous but essential foundations of long-term growth.” (09/05/25)
