James P. Pinkerton - Page 8

President Trump may be facing frustration in advancing his Republican agenda, but he has clearly succeeded in changing the Democrats’ agenda. The Democratic Party’s new platform, dubbed “A Better Deal,” is aimed to appeal to Trump’s populist base.

A doomsday climate change cover story in New York magazine is getting lots of buzz among the Beltway elites. The headline is indeed a grabber: “The Uninhabitable Earth: Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak—sooner than you think.”

In his new book, “The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism,” author Henry Olsen argues that Republicans today are getting the Reagan record wrong. In misremembering Reagan’s life, they misapprehend Reagan’s legacy. Olsen’s book proves that Reagan was an enemy of LBJ’s Great Society, but not of FDR’s New Deal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to delay his chamber’s vote on the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA)—that being the Senate’s companion bill to the House’s repeal-and-replace bill—caused shock waves in Washington. Here are five takeaways.

On Monday, the White House will hold a “tech summit,” playing host to leading executives from most—but not all—of the leading technology companies in America.

The ultimate hope for Middle American jobs is to make permanent the viability, even desirability, of fossil fuels. And yet fossil fuels will only be safe to use, long term, if they are safeguarded by the addition of new clean technology, endorsed and ratified by specific Congressional action.

While the red states of Trump Nation applauded the president’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, the opposition in the culture-crafting blue cities along the two coasts flowed fast and furious. Just about every headline and press report in the establishment Media has been critical, with some going out of their way to neon-sign their negativity. Yet in their untiring enthusiasm to hammer Trump with everything available, the elites in the toniest zip codes have made some curious choices, as they seek to make choices for the rest of us.

In our first installment, we noted that in the distant past, China had invented key technologies—for war-fighting and ocean-voyaging—and yet had failed effectively to develop them. So now let’s consider the possible fate of another country, the United States. In the 20th century, America broke ground in two technological frontiers: cyberspace and outer space. Both now face serious competition from China. As we shall see, the U.S. chose to develop effectively one of these technologies, but not the other. So could the U.S. today be making the same sort of mistake that China made in the past? We’ll likely know the answer to that question sometime in this century, but even now, the early warning signs are ominous.

As a people, the Chinese obviously know something about building, and maintaining, a strong civilization. And one of the keys to civilization-maintenance is strategic power, both military and industrial. The verdict of history is that sluggishness and ineptitude is catastrophic; the world is always in motion, and so the only hope for a people is to stay atop of the change, lest they be swept under. So now, here’s a pointed question for Americans: Who’s lethargic, and incompetent, today? If not its people as a whole, then at least its ruling elite? Who’s fiddling while the country burns—or falls apart?

On Thursday night, President Trump commemorated the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea. Speaking from the deck of the World War II aircraft carrier Intrepid, permanently berthed in the waters of New York Harbor, Trump paid tribute to the sailors and airmen who fought in that long-ago combat; indeed, seven of the old salts, now in their nineties, were in the audience, and Trump respectfully named each one.

“For conservatives, it was their Camelot.” Those words appear as the epigraph to Craig Shirley’s new book, Reagan Rising: The Decisive Years, 1976-1980. In his new volume, Shirley chronicles the years 1976 to 1980, when Reagan, having lost his bid to grab the Republican presidential nomination away from Gerald Ford, was pondering his next political move—if there was to be one. Along the way, we learn much about America in the late 70s—lessons that echo even to this day, as Americans once again see populist insurgency pitted against establishment power.

An era has come to an end at Fox News. The departure, last year, of Roger Ailes, its founder and CEO for two decades, and the departure, this year, of Bill O’Reilly, its biggest star for two decades, means that Fox will be changing. What’s said of politics is also true of TV: Personnel is policy. Tell me the names of those who are making the decisions about programming, and the names of those who are actually doing the shows, and I’ll tell you, in turn, about the network. But first, let’s take a closer look at the country—at least its presidential voting patterns—pre-Fox and post-Fox.

The real essence of “a great healthcare plan for the people” would put the focus on science, not finance. Yes, of course, finance is necessary, but money by itself won’t cure a thing.

On Saturday, in the wake of the failure of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s American Health Care Act (AHCA), President Trump tweeted, “ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!”

Appropriate for a new president with a bold agenda, a new chapter in healthcare policy is beginning. And, of course, an old chapter is closing. The new chapter is about health. The old chapter was about health insurance—and there’s a difference. As argued here at Breitbart many times, health and health insurance are not the same thing. Both health and health insurance are important, but the first is obviously prior to the second.

As we think about mobilizing to win the war against disease, disability, and premature death, we might start by thinking about how we’ve won our wars in the past.

Where is it written that “healthcare policy” has to be defined only as “health insurance”? Instead of focusing exclusively on health insurance, perhaps Republicans could embrace a broader agenda: focus on health. They could put more emphasis on the science of cures and treatment, and less on the politics of insurance and reimbursement.

The fate of Obamacare dominates the news—again. Eight years ago, anti-Obamacare Republicans and Tea Partiers were on the offensive. Today, it’s pro-Obamacare Democrats, perhaps joined by “astroturf” activists, on the offense. Congressional Republicans have had plenty of time to think through their preferred alternative to Obamacare in the seven years since it was signed into law. So what is the hang-up? Part of the problem is the GOP has never really come to grips with the basic question: Do Americans have a right to health insurance?

During last year’s presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump said that if elected, he would save the federal government billions by forcing the pharmaceutical companies to negotiate—that is, lower—their prices.

President Donald Trump made big news on January 31, when he met in the White House with top pharmaceutical company executives. Or at least he deserved to make big news, because the issues he raised in the West Wing’s Roosevelt Room will prove to be central to the health, and wealth, of every American.

As we await the debut of the Trump administration’s healthcare policy, perhaps it will be helpful, providing a useful context, if we step back and consider the wisdom of the 19th century free-market economist, Frédéric Bastiat. In 1848, in an essay entitled “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen,” Bastiat argued that shortsighted people look only at immediate and obvious effects, which could be harmful, while farsighted people look to longer-term and not-so-obvious effects—which could be beneficial.

When all is said and done, the Trumpcare that replaces Obamacare will reflect the interests of Trump voters, and the middle class. It will thus be different from past efforts, coming from both sides of the aisle, to devise a workable form of health insurance.

Everyone knew that Obamacare wouldn’t be repealed without a fight—and everyone was right. But how rough of a rumble will it be? That’s the real question.

The holiday season is a joyous time for most, but not for all. For some—for too many—it’s a lonely time. And yet in that sadness is an opportunity both to do good and to make real change.

Most Americans, of course, are familiar with Trump’s emphasis on rebuilding America’s industrial might. And yet the idea of curing disease has long been a part of Making America Great.

Whither populism? Is the insurgency associated with Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders a flash in the pan, or is it something real The answer to that question, of course, depends on who does the answering. Most of the Republican establishment, along with the Democratic establishment—which some describe as the “Uniparty”—would prefer to believe that the populism of Trump and Sanders is temporary, that is, a nightmare from which they will soon awaken. Meanwhile, the Trumpians and the Sandersistas see themselves as part of a long-term force, even the winning force, within their respective parties. Yet now comes an author with an arresting argument: He believes that the Trump and Sanders groups, currently in different political parties, might yet find themselves fighting on the same side—perhaps even in the same party.

1. The October Surprise

Remember the “October Surprise”? I sure do. Back in the 1980 presidential campaign, the October Surprise was the rumor that the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, vexed as he was by the Iranian hostage crisis, would pull off some shocking ploy—such as gaining the sudden release of the hostages—as a way of winning that year’s November election. That October Surprise never happened, of course, and maybe we’ll never really know if it was ever anything more than a figment of someone’s imagination.

1. The Old Four Freedoms

In his 1941 State of the Union address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt articulated his vision of the American social contract, which became known as the “Four Freedoms.” These were, “freedom of speech,” “freedom of worship,” “freedom from want,” and “freedom from fear.” Those big ideas have defined much of the 20th century—and not just in America.

In an earlier article, “The Democrats vs. The Deplorables: The New Class Struggle Comes to the Midwest,” this author detailed the Democrats’ systematic campaign against the interests of American energy workers, many of them unionized—a curious stance for the presumed party of working people and labor unions. In this piece, I will outline an even more curious stance: the Democrats’ systematic campaign against American border security and American sovereignty.

The Democrats, once the party of working people, are now a party dominated by environmentalists and multiculturalists. And I can prove it.

There’s something happening here. And what it is, well, it’s perfectly clear: There’s a peaceful revolution rumbling through the country. On one side of the metaphorical barricade: Donald Trump and his “deplorables.” On the other side: Hillary Clinton and her close allies, the Mainstream Media.

Second of two parts

In Part One, we were witness to the power of the 60 percent majority, and we saw how our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, welded together the center-right majority of his day to achieve historic reform—there’s a reason why TR is immortalized on Mt. Rushmore. And we also saw, more briefly, how our 37th president, Richard Nixon, also built a center-right majority.

The world, as seen through the eyes of a working stiff: “You are patiently standing in the middle of a long line stretching toward the horizon, where the American Dream awaits. But as you wait, you see people cutting in line ahead of you.”

In politics, you know you’re getting somewhere when your name becomes the “peg.” That is, if your name is used as a tease to get readers to keep reading, then you’ve got some star-power.

The headline in Sunday’s Detroit Free Press was revealing: “Trump’s trade talk resonates for some union members.” Here, in what was once the citadel of organized labor, there’s anxiety—and curiosity. How will working people vote this November? For Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump? Or perhaps another candidate?

It was a headline that launched headlines. On August 24, Politico, the buzzy Bible of the Beltway, put these words atop its homepage: “Hillary Clinton’s run-out-the-clock strategy: The Democrat aims to ignore the email and Foundation controversies, seeing a shrinking calendar as her friend.”