Powered by RND

I Believe

Joel K. Douglas
I Believe
Latest episode

Available Episodes

5 of 92
  • If Markets, Mandates, and Taxes All Fail..?
    We Say We Believe in Justice. But We’ve Stopped Asking What That Actually Means.Some say it means equality. Others, freedom. Some try to manage it with policy. Others trust the market to sort it out. We argue. We legislate. We campaign.But half of working American families still need government help just to survive.That’s not justice. That’s a national failure. We’ve normalized, excused, and even celebrated this failure in partisan terms. We’ve hidden the truth. We don’t lack resources. We lack clarity and intent. We don’t lack compassion. We lack consensus.This isn’t about left or right. It’s about whether we still pursue the goal that founded America: justice, not for the powerful, not for the loudest voices, but for the people.Justice for the kid in the trailer or the projects. Justice for the single mom clocking in before sunrise. Justice not through handouts, but through wages. Through dignity. Through the freedom to work and build a life.This piece asks a hard question: If none of our political tribes is delivering justice, how do we intend to?And we’ll offer a real answer. Not another slogan. Not another tax. Not another mandate. A real answer, starting from a truth too many have forgotten: we will only achieve justice by building consensus.It’s a Truth as Old as Humanity Itself We take the advantages we’re given instead of giving them away. We don’t do it out of malice. We do it for survival. Over time, that instinct shapes the systems we build. They bend toward imbalance, not because someone planned it, but because some people find the edges faster than others. And once they do, it’s not in our nature to let them go.This is why kids born in mansions go to better schools than kids born in trailers or projects. They get better doctors, better nutrition, safer neighborhoods, and more chances. A parent in Atherton, California, zip code 94027, median home about $7.9 million, can hire a private SAT tutor at two-hundred dollars an hour.Their kids earn top scores and reach elite schools.A kid in a single-wide works full-time while going to school full-time, if they go to school at all. And this isn’t just one zip code in California. It’s true across America. Books written three thousand years ago ask: Should we race horses in fields of rocks? We’d cripple the horses. Should we plow the sea with a tractor? We’d flood the engine and ruin the machine.The questions sound absurd. Yet the same book then asks why we build systems that claim to offer opportunity while stacking the odds against those who need it most.It’s an ancient question: How do we achieve justice?The question is even more urgent today in America. Most nations were not founded to achieve justice. Nations rose to consolidate power, defend land, unify faiths, or escape colonial rule.But America, born at war, is different. We are unique in putting justice at the heart of our identity. Our Constitution says it plainly: “We the People… in order to establish justice… do ordain and establish this Constitution (as the foundation) for the United States of America.”Simply put, America was founded on the idea that a kid in a trailer should have the same chance as a kid in a mansion. That idea is justice.America set out six national goals. The first, and most important, is justice. Justice is the end of government, the reason it exists.We can’t claim to be conservatives, progressives, or even Americans if we ignore this truth. Justice isn’t a side goal. It’s the point.Will Capitalism Achieve Justice?America’s financial system is capitalist. It isn’t good or bad. It’s a tool. Capitalism drives growth, sparks innovation, and lifts our standard of living. It meets consumer demand better than any system we’ve tried.The problems we saw earlier aren’t capitalism’s fault. They happen when markets run without enough guidance to meet society’s needs. Markets respond to incentives, not morality. People act in their self-interest. Government exists to protect people’s rights and property, and to ensure the rules serve everyone.Because markets do not guarantee justice, government must work within markets to set conditions that create justice. When the system ignores the worker, the worker gains nothing from the system.We work for our bread. If the financial system forgets those who sweat for that bread, we end up with no bread at all.Or, more accurately than no bread, we end up with half of American families with parents who go to work and still need handouts from their fellow American taxpayers, according to a US Department of Health and Human Services analysis from 2023. That is the reality of America today. Some tout the programs as federal programs that slash poverty. That’s a lie.If half of working American families need government support to survive, that isn’t success. It’s proof we’ve failed to achieve our nation’s primary goal. But some celebrate this failure and keep the handouts coming.It’s not the fault of those families. They are working families. But because we have failed to set conditions that allow American families to earn their bread, they cannot earn enough without government assistance.So… America was founded to establish justice, and on the freedom to pursue self-interest and protect property. Bring those two ideas together, and a simple truth follows:Every American, whether they grow up in a mansion or a trailer, must have a real chance to work, earn, and shape a life of their choosing. That is the promise of a just society.If It Were Easy to Achieve Justice, We Would Already Have Done SoRepublicans call for relying on the markets. But we will not achieve justice by relying only on the free market. Markets are great at many things: allocating resources, driving innovation, rewarding efficiency. But markets chase profit, not fairness. Justice requires intention and design. We must look beyond what markets reward, and instead focus on what an American family needs: food on the table and heat in the house through wages: real wages, not handouts.Some think they’re kings, but we will not achieve justice through Executive Orders. They’re fleeting. They don’t last. They don’t demonstrate leadership. One president signs them in; the next one signs them out. Back and forth, election after election, no stability. We can’t build justice on paperwork that disappears with the next election.Those who believe in government call for more rules. But we will not achieve justice through unfunded mandates. Mandates like raising the federal minimum wage sound righteous on paper. They promise higher wages, safer workplaces, better benefits. But government mandates arrive without resources to make them work. Small businesses run on tight margins. If we demand higher wages without helping businesses raise revenue, we ask them to defy economic gravity. When they can’t, they fail. We must give small businesses tools to succeed, even as we lift workers.Socialists call to tax the wealthy. But we will not achieve justice through taxes. Taxes are necessary. They pay for roads, schools, defense, and the core functions of government. But if our strategy for justice starts and ends with taxing the wealthy, we’ll wait forever. Even if we taxed billionaires out of existence, most of that money would vanish into bureaucracy long before reaching a struggling family. Government-funded bureaucracy spends money managing poverty, not ending it.Democrats call for social equality. But we will not achieve justice by dying on the hill of democracy. Justice does not mean equality. Some people will always earn more. Some will work longer hours, take greater risks, build businesses, invent tools, or manage others. And some will simply be luckier. That’s liberty. Not something to erase, but something to extend. We can’t reduce the advantages of the successful. Instead, we must expand the conditions that created their success, so others can follow the same path.So… how will we achieve justice?Focus on the GoalWe will only achieve justice through consensus. We are a nation of competing interests. Inside one state, many might agree. But across coastal states, the Great Plains, the mountains, and the Mississippi River basin, needs differ.A policy that works in San Francisco might break a family business in rural Nebraska. A rule written for Wall Street might choke a rancher in Montana. One size does not fit fifty states.Justice isn’t about uniformity; it’s about legitimacy. That means people across regions, backgrounds, and ideologies must see themselves in the outcome. We don’t need to erase differences. We need to build common ground.And the place to begin is with agreement. Agreement on a goal. A simple, measurable idea most Americans still believe in: if you work, you should be able to provide for yourself and your family without government help.It’s not a partisan idea. It’s a promise of justice. It’s the primary goal of America.To fulfill it, we need a system that rewards employers for paying livable wages, not one that punishes workers with dependency when the market fails them.So, how do we build that consensus? Business Taxes in America are Low. But They’re Not Low EnoughDemocrats say the answer to poverty is raising taxes to fund the government. They rage against cutting business taxes.Here’s the truth: business taxes in America are low. But they’re not low enough. Not low enough for businesses that actually help us achieve our national goals.We need real prosperity for working Americans. Not temporary patches, not programs that hide failure with handouts, and not policies that pile debt onto our children. If that’s the goal, then we must build a system that rewards the right behavior.Consider the champion of Democratic leadership: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR’s success didn’t come from control. He aligned incentives for businesses and individuals alike. He showed how the right incentives could rally a nation. And in doing so, he set a persuasive precedent for incentivized wage policy today.Democratic leaders have forgotten his example.Today, we tax businesses that pay livable wages. We tax businesses that provide healthcare. We tax businesses whose employees don’t need food stamps or Medicaid.Meanwhile, businesses paying poverty wages shift their labor costs onto taxpayers. Their workers survive only because we pay through programs like SNAP, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. That cost isn’t small.Means-tested welfare spending approaches one trillion dollars a year.So yes, business taxes in America are low. But they’re not low enough for the right businesses.Using FDR’s example, we should flip the logic. If a business pays every worker a livable wage, it shouldn’t pay any federal tax at all. Because that business is already doing its part. It’s meeting the national goal: food on the table and heat in the house for every working American, without government assistance.If we want a system that works, we need to stop taxing virtue and start taxing failure.That’s what we mean when we say: business taxes in America are low.But they’re not low enough.Wages in America are High. But They’re Not High EnoughRepublicans argue that the solution to poverty lies in the free market. They say workers must make themselves more valuable, and that government action only distorts the market and slows growth.But here’s the truth: wages in America are high. They’re just not high enough for families to support themselves without help.We can’t support the idea that every American must work for their bread, then defend a system where millions work full-time and still go hungry.We can’t say we value dignity and then ask working Americans to rely on handouts. We can’t say we believe in liberty and then block the conditions that allow a man or woman to earn enough to choose their own path. If labor has value, and it does, then all workers must be paid enough to reflect the cost of living in the country they support.Consider the champion of Republican leadership: President Abraham Lincoln. He understood we couldn’t support this contradiction. Some claim Lincoln didn’t lead the fight for labor rights. In fact, Lincoln led the fight for the right of enslaved workers to be paid at all.Lincoln didn’t need a modern welfare state to tell him that sweat deserves bread. He believed every worker, free or born enslaved, should see a path to prosperity.Today, we subsidize businesses that underpay their workers. We tax businesses that take care of their workers. We spend nearly a trillion dollars each year dealing with the consequences of low wages, and then fight about whether social programs are bloated or broken.We’ve missed the point.The point isn’t whether we should have social programs. The point is justice.It’s whether our system reflects our stated values: that work has dignity, and every American who works should live without government aid.If we believe people should work and provide for their families, the system should reward that work with enough to live, without handouts.Wages in America are high. But they’re not high enough for half of American families to thrive without help.With This Ring, I Thee Wed…America is a union of states and individuals who live in those states. Like any marriage or partnership, a union lasts only if it’s built on commitment. And commitment demands we focus on what matters most.We shouldn’t fixate on whether business taxes are too high or too low.We shouldn’t argue over whether certain jobs "deserve" a living wage.We shouldn’t let debates over social programs distract us from deeper truths.These debates feel urgent. But they miss the point.America wasn’t founded to preserve tax codes or pick economic winners. It was founded with a purpose, and that purpose was justice. Justice is our founding promise and enduring challenge. If we are to keep our union and remain Americans in more than name, justice must be our shared goal.So… back to the question that opened this conversation:How do we achieve justice?We clarify our purpose. We incentivize progress on both sides. We build consensus to move toward the goal, even if we must sacrifice the method.We won’t all agree on the path. But we can agree on the destination.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeat https://uppbeat.io/t/aaron-paul-low/no-royal-road License code: QWMVWXP4G2V68YTU Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    18:11
  • Did FDR’s D-Day Prayer Violate the First Amendment?
    Americans Struggle Today with how Openly our Leaders Should Express Their FaithI had a buddy growing up. His name was Emmett.He wasn’t a classmate. He was much older than I was. One of those men from the Greatest Generation who made time for a kid who asked too many questions.Few of us really know the stories of most of the people in our lives. And until I interviewed him for a Junior High grammar class assignment for Mrs. Adams, all I knew about Emmett was that he greeted me every Sunday in my small country church with a smile on his face.I knew some details before the interview. Emmett Donovan. Born in Monroe County, Missouri. Carpenter by trade. Long-time deacon at the First Baptist Church. He had a second refrigerator in his garage where his lifelong bride, Hazel, let him keep his fishing worms. I learned a lot about Emmett in that interview. He was the only kid from Monroe County to board a boat in England on June 4th, 1944, bound for Normandy to fight Nazi Germany. The weather across the channel was dicey. The operation delayed a day because of it, but there were too many soldiers to unload the boats. It would have taken too long. They had to stay an extra day on the boats, waiting. They played cards. Wrote letters. Tried to keep their spirits high. Emmett had married Hazel in 1937. She was on his mind, and he on hers.The weather cleared up enough to try the assault on June 6. At 2300 hours on June 5, paratroopers started taking off from their bases in England. At midnight, June 6, the Allied Fleet pushed off. Five hours later, dawn bled into gray.In the darkness just before dawn, the men had spent almost a full two days aboard the ships. The rough English Channel tossed the vessels to and fro. Many men were ill from seasickness and nerves. They knew they would not all survive and return home to America.Sunrise in Normandy, France, came at 5:46 AM local time that day. From the boats, the men could see a faint outline of where they were going, but no clear view of what awaited them. Landing craft carrying the first wave launched from the larger vessels about seven to 12 miles offshore. From aboard these landing craft, the faint outline of the coast was visible in the near dawn light. But by 0530, the Germans absolutely knew something big was happening. Just after midnight, over 13,000 US and British paratroopers had dropped behind enemy lines. German units in Normandy were engaging paratroopers. German radios reported landings and firefights throughout the night.Allied bombers, fighters, and gliders filled the night sky, lit by the flicker of explosions below.Now, in the early morning, German radar and lookouts tracked an armada of ships. German defenses saw glimpses of the landing craft through the rough sea chop and the fog. Not every landing craft made it to shore.The sea was violent that morning. The swells were high. Beach obstacles and mines sank some boats. Artillery hit others before they ever touched sand. Engines failed. Men jumped into water over their heads and drowned under the weight of their packs. All under heavy German fire.The obstacles and fires damaged, misguided, or destroyed hundreds of landing craft before they could reach their designated beaches. Omaha was the worst of the five landing zones. Nearly half the tanks sank before firing a shot. Some landing craft circled for too long, disoriented in smoke and chaos, and ran aground.Emmett’s boat made it. But that didn’t mean it went well.He jumped into the water, rifle held high, and slowly waded in heavy water toward the beach. On his way toward his objective, Emmett stopped to provide first aid to a fallen soldier on the beach. It was bad. He told me he tried to help the soldier put himself back together. But with bullets cracking around him, there wasn’t much he could do. Allied forces paid a high price. Two-thirds of some initial landing units suffered casualties. Company A of the 116th Infantry Regiment, part of the 29th Division, hit Omaha Beach first. In just the first hour, 96% became casualties, a grim testament to the brutality of that morning.Emmett would achieve his objective. Behind him, wave after wave of Allied troops poured onto the beaches, clawing out a foothold, marking the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany.As a reward, Emmett had the pleasure of going on to fight at the Battle of the Bulge. To the credit of many, America would help defeat fascism and liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. After the war, Emmett returned home to his small country town. He and Hazel would stay married for 61 years. They had two sons and three grandchildren. She passed away when he was 85. He would survive her for 12 more years.Many years later, as a young boy, I only saw him act with grace and dignity. He was always quick with a smile and a handshake.He didn’t talk about politics or pride. Had you not known and asked about his experience, he would not have told you. You would have assumed he had lived his entire life in a little Missouri town.He had a quiet faith. He was a proud member of his congregation, but he didn’t talk much about it.I’ve never forgotten that interview. I was just a Junior High student. And like most kids, I didn’t ask enough of the right questions. He remembered the beach vividly. The chaos. The noise. The man he tried to help.But if I could sit with Emmett again today, I’d ask about the hours before that.What was he thinking about on the boat? Did he write a letter to Hazel? Did he stare out at the gray horizon, wondering if he would see her again? I’ll never know. But knowing him later in life, I believe he carried something more than fear. Duty, maybe. The quiet strength of his generation.I believe a strong component of his grace and dignity came from his faith. Emmett and Hazel weren’t the only Americans praying that day.President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s June 6th Address1944 was a time of hand-wringing across the country. We worried about our nation’s sons and daughters fighting in Europe and the Pacific. When people worry, they turn to the Almighty. When they turn to the Almighty, they pray. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s calendar on June 6, 1944, detailed only one appointment. Invasion Day. The FDR Library says that “During the tense early hours of the invasion, FDR monitored reports from the front. That evening, he delivered a statement to the American people. It took the form of a prayer, which he read on national radio.”FDR sought to offer the nation strength with a heartfelt address.“My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war.For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas -- whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.Thy will be done, Almighty God.Amen.”Now we are ready for our question. If a national leader leads a prayer event, is that a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause? Specifically, the part that says the government can’t establish a religion?Thomas Jefferson: A Case Study in the Tension Between Personal Faith and Public OfficeThomas Jefferson was a deist. A deist believes in a single creator who made the universe, set natural laws in motion, and then does not interfere with those laws through miracles or revelations.He saw a providential Creator behind human rights but viewed organized religion and government-issued prayer as matters best kept separate.Jefferson believed Biblical miracles were myths. He doubted the power of prayer. At the same time, he recognized humans are obliged to worship God, and he prayed publicly.He helped draft a 1774 “day of fasting and prayer” to protest the British Intolerable Acts, then later dismissed the event and claimed that the resolution had been cooked up for political effect. As governor of Virginia, he passed along Congress’s request for another prayer day. But as president, he flat-out refused to issue one. In an 1808 letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, he said any “recommendation” from the chief executive would still carry pressure and that “it is not for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises.” Then, in his Second Inaugural address, President Jefferson said…“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are … and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications.” No contradiction there, in his eyes. A president may pray aloud as a private believer, and at the same time refuse to command government power to stage a national fast.Jefferson’s view became the foundation for religion in America. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. First, freedom of religion. A president, or any other American, may kneel in a church, chant in a temple, light a menorah, face Mecca, or follow any creed they choose. Second, freedom from religion. We may skip worship altogether. No tax supports a church. A courthouse may never force a prayer. Citizenship never hinges on belief.That distinction, personal expression versus official endorsement, became the core of our modern Establishment Clause test. It is why FDR’s D-Day prayer passed muster, and why a leader may still pray in public. The invitation must be voluntary.At the same time, FDR’s address offended some Americans who believed we had no role in World War II. Isolationists urged that we ought to stay out of the war and continued to resent US intervention even after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Pacifists lamented the tragedy of humanity and urged prayer for deliverance instead of military action. Activists objected to the prayer. When Congress later tried to add the D-Day prayer to the WWII Memorial, the ACLU and an interfaith/atheist coalition wrote that the plaque demonstrated a lack of respect for religious diversity that would detract from national unity.So…what’s it going to be?Lead with Grace and DignityEmmett understood better than most of us ever will that grace and dignity must lead us.The separation of church and state isn’t about eliminating faith from public life. Faith cannot be government coercion. It is personal conviction.Emmett, like Jefferson and Roosevelt, demonstrated that strength doesn’t impose itself. It reveals itself quietly, in dignity, humility, and quiet confidence.When a national leader prays voluntarily in public, rather than immediately claiming a First Amendment violation, we should respond as Emmett would, with grace and dignity.In truth, Emmett’s quiet faith, Roosevelt’s prayer, and Jefferson’s wall aren’t about religion at all.Our greatest responsibility isn’t to defend what we believe or correct what we think is wrong in others. Greatness never comes from insisting others share our beliefs. Greatness comes from humility, courageously living our beliefs ourselves.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/almost-thereLicense code: SUCWYITYH7YCVIYU Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    22:43
  • Can We Ever Trust Elections Again?
    June 21, 1788. New Hampshire becomes the ninth state to ratify the Constitution, activating the new government and binding America to a single compact.Our Republic is dedicated to the premise that we are created equal. We fought a war to escape a king. We ratified a Constitution to rule ourselves. The Constitution is a contract between states. We can sum up the foundational basis of that contract in one word…Trust.Each sovereign state pledges to certify its vote and accept the certifications of every other. If that handshake fails, the Union fails.Trust demands proof. How do we make every voter, every state official, and every member of Congress accept the tally as fact?January 6, 2021Tear gas. Pepper spray. Flashbang grenades. The cameras didn’t miss a moment. Two thousand protesters from nearly every state turned into rioters. The floor of the House emptied. Staff members grabbed the mahogany boxes that, since 1877, have held the certified electoral votes of each state. They ran.The count stopped.Photojournalist and Marine veteran Chris Jones at the Capitol Building that day observed that “The looks in people’s eyes seemed religious to me, not political. So it was important for me to use that iconography in my pictures, to talk about how people do things for their faith that they wouldn’t do for their politics.”For most Americans, the counting of votes had always been a formality. It wasn’t exciting. It wasn’t dramatic. It was supposed to be boring. That’s the point of a stable system.But not on January 6.The nation watched in horror as the institution of the American democratic Republic lost trust in itself. That day, the count became the crisis. Some stormed the Capitol because they believed the tally was rigged. Others defended the building because they believed the tally was sacred. While the crisis was unfolding, a precious few, but enough, stood firm and did their duty to preserve the Republic. We owe them a debt of gratitude.No matter our opinion of the facts of the legitimacy of the vote or the cause for the distrust. Either way, something broke. The numbers no longer spoke with authority. Many Americans believed they no longer trusted the count.And the problem persists. In 2024, the FBI warned that foreign actors continue trying to undermine Americans’ trust in elections through disinformation. The fracture isn’t healing. It’s spreading.Somewhere along the way, the foundation of the institution cracked. January 6 wasn’t just an isolated moment of chaos. It revealed something deeper. Something dangerous. Trust in the vote itself fractured. That fracture didn’t heal when the building cleared. It’s a live threat today. Without trust, our elections lose their meaning. Without trust, our Republic crumbles from the inside.Trust demands proof.We Are One Nation Because We Are a Union of StatesThe Constitution isn’t a rulebook. It’s a contract between states that each state agreed to sign. As a part of the contract, New York agreed it would accept a certified count from Alabama. Wyoming agreed to trust the vote in California. Ohio agreed they can’t override Georgia’s tally just because it doesn’t like the outcome.Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of this Constitutional contract outlines that each state decides how to choose its electors, based on whatever method its legislature sets. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 identifies that states and not a federal authority govern the times, places, and manner of their elections. In short, states decide their vote. Not the federal government. Congress does retain some authority to intervene and standardize practices to ensure consistency and protect voting rights, but only because the states amended the contract to give Congress this authority. Every state later agreed voting rights could not be denied by race (15th Amendment), sex (19th), failure to pay poll taxes (24th), or age over eighteen (26th).Bottom line. Each state runs its own election. That’s not a flaw. That’s the design. When we ratified the Constitution, we had just fought with everything we had to win a war against a king, and we weren’t about to give the keys to another one.We decided that no one person in Washington, or even a group of people, would manage elections. We gave that power to the states. But inherent in that power is responsibility. States agreed that once a result was certified, the rest of the country would accept it.We didn’t personally sign the Constitution, but every Election Day, we delegate our voice to whoever wins, and we live with their choices. That’s representative governance. Institutions endure because each generation inherits them unless it chooses to dismantle them. Without that carry-forward consent, fifty states would drift apart and the Union would fracture. Trust in the contract, then, is necessary for national survival.When one state casts doubt on another’s election, or when Congress or the President threaten to reject results a state has already decided, the entire structure starts to crack.The states don’t all have to agree. We never could anyway. But we have to trust each other and accept the vote from other states. Without trust, the contract collapses.Trust demands proof. How would we prove the results of elections?The Technology TestWith mass elections, we face two different vulnerabilities. Both are technology-based. There is paper, and there are machines.Some call to rely on paper ballots. But paper ballots, counted by hand or scanned, carry a human burden. Humans make lots of mistakes. We are slow. We scale poorly. We are prone to fatigue, bias, and clerical error. The weakness of paper ballots isn’t in the vote itself; it’s in the count. Large-scale studies show hand counts differ half a percent to two percent from audited totals. Some one-off experiments collapse entirely. Nye County, Nevada’s 2022 “full hand count” logged a discrepancy of nearly twenty-five percent between manual and machine tallies before the state shut it down. Even the low end, half a percent, would swing 25,000 votes in a five-million-ballot state. That gap alone can decide a close race. In the 2020 election, President Biden won the vote in the state of Georgia by 12,000 votes. Arizona, 10,000. Wisconsin, 20,000. Trust demands proof.The more complex the recount, the more faith we have to place in people. Humans perform poorly on repetitive, tedious tasks.So, if we want to maintain trust, a human count isn’t proof.Digital machines offer a different problem. They are fast. They scale beautifully. But their weakness is perception. They aren’t transparent. If they’re connected to the internet even once, they open the door to doubt. A single confirmed breach, or even a plausible story of one, is enough to rupture confidence. If people believe the machines can be tampered with, they no longer trust the count. A machine count where we can’t see behind the curtain isn’t proof.So we have a tradeoff. Paper risks accuracy and timeliness. Machines risk legitimacy.Both fail the test because they can’t answer the central question.Can they prove the result?Maybe there’s another way. Trust demands proof. To fix trust, we need a new standard. One that we already apply when the stakes are life or death.I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of WorldsFew systems achieve the high standard of societal trust. These systems have zero‑failure tolerance because the stakes are civilization‑level.Let’s think about how we certify weapons platforms that carry nuclear warheads. Each platform must achieve nuclear certification before it becomes active.Nuclear certification isn’t a casual process. We subject those systems to a standard of review that assumes one tiny mistake could end civilization. When the cost of failure is existential, that system must meet a no-failure bar. Every bolt, every microchip, every software patch. The standard is a transparent reliability rate of fewer than one error in one billion events. The 1-in-1-billion benchmark is not a metaphor; it comes straight from official federal nuclear safety guidelines. DOE Order 452.1F and DOD guidance require that the probability of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear detonation remain below this threshold.If our election system counted 160 million votes with the same reliability, it would permit fewer than one single miscounted ballot. Practically zero. “Good-enough” paper or opaque machines fall short. That is the cost of keeping legitimacy non-negotiable.The nuclear certification process is slow, rigorous, and unforgiving. Why? Because when the stakes are existential, “good enough” isn’t enough.An election collapse threatens the Republic with equal finality. Once voters stop trusting the count, they stop trusting the system. At that point, we’re not debating the process. Just like we did on January 6, 2021, we watch in horror as some challenge the continuity of the Republic itself.In short, instead of choosing between paper ballots and machines that count behind a curtain, we should hold vote-counting systems to the same standard we use for nuclear weapons platforms. A nuclear weapons-grade election system means air-gapped hardware that’s never connected to the internet. No remote access, ever. Open-source, frozen code base. An immutable paper backup for every ballot. A public, mathematically verifiable audit trail. Continuous independent surveillance and testing. Tamper detection alerts. A public record briefing to each state’s election body detailing every abnormal event. Full transparency.Engineers test, states see the data, and voters can download the report. A continuous loop from opaque process to transparent, verifiable record. No more challenging the legitimacy of elections. No more threatening the legitimacy of the Republic. Results everyone can see and prove. Trust demands proof. If we already use this zero-failure standard to protect lives, shouldn’t we use it to protect our democratic Republic itself?If the Republic lives on trust, shouldn’t trust deserve our decisive effort?Yes, a zero-failure system is expensive. But the question is bigger than price.We already spend fortunes to protect the Republic’s borders. We should spend what it takes to protect the Republic’s integrity.Preserving the Union is our first national goal. That Union lives or dies on public faith in the count. Lose that faith, and no army can save us. Union is not the absence of conflict; it is the shared burden of conflict. We win and lose together, and we accept the result together.Union depends on trust. Without trust, we risk permanent fracture.Trust demands proof.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/morningsLicense code: OFHOYTZTU6ZNPVES Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    16:10
  • Is the Presidential Oath Broken?
    We live in an age where the oath of office often feels like a formality. But President George Washington didn’t see it that way.Why not?He was an honorable man. He led decisive action that saved a ragtag set of colonies and their fledgling fighters. He helped forge an America born at war, and then spent his life, with others, shaping it into a lasting union.We asked him to be king. He refused. Instead of seizing power, he handed it back to the people. He is one of only four presidents honored with a monument on the National Mall.Washington saw the presidency not as an achievement, but as a duty. The office wasn’t his. It was the nation’s. He was only a temporary occupant.His first term was a dry run of an experimental system. At his second inauguration, he delivered the shortest speech in presidential history: 135 words. Four sentences. In it, he asked to be judged not by success or failure, but by fidelity to the Constitution.He never saw the oath as ceremony. He saw it as a public binding. An act of submission to law, to philosophy, to something greater than himself. He swore to uphold that ideal above riches, safety, or power. He made himself small beneath the American ideal.The oath directs the president to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Then it adds a quiet line: to the best of my Ability.That phrase carries humility. In the hands of someone like Washington, it becomes a unifying voice. But not everyone is like Washington.In lesser hands, “to the best of my ability” promises nothing. It demands no wisdom. No courage. No character. The Constitution doesn’t define “Ability.” It sets no standard, offers no test. It doesn’t ask whether a president understands liberty, grasps law, or even knows the six goals of the preamble. It only asks that he act according to his ability.So what happens when a man with no moral compass takes the oath?What if his ability begins and ends with self-interest? What if we choose someone whose ability is shaped not by humility, but by ambition, ignorance, or vanity?He can still raise his hand. He can still say the words. He can still claim he did his best.And the Constitution won’t stop him.It gives the people the power to choose. And once we choose, it assumes we chose well. It assumes we chose someone who understands what it means to defend a republic.Which brings us back to the same words every president has spoken since Washington.A Constitutional Clause Built on Subjectivity Found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, the Constitution outlines that before they enter the office, the President shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.The oath is a mirror. It reflects back the character of the person who takes it. Most constitutional clauses set standards. Common verbiage includes “shall,” “must,” and “only with advice and consent.” Not the oath. It doesn’t bind the office to a standard of excellence; it binds it to the standard of the person. It says the president will act to the best of their ability, which turns the focus inward. It’s not a promise of outcome. The oath is filtered through the person’s internal fidelity. It limits the obligation by what the individual president is capable of and not what the Constitution demands. We could ask why the framers didn’t just say the president must uphold the Constitution or shall ensure its defense. Perhaps they feared the tyranny of perfection just as much as the tyranny of incompetence.The framers wrote before modern party systems, before mass media, and before the idea that one person might use the presidency as a personal brand empire. They assumed men of honor, or at least men with a reputation to protect. For the framers, “ability” was a nod to human limits, not human depravity.They assumed, wrongly, that the people would never elect someone without basic ability and a high ethical standard. Of course, there is the law, and the law is measurable. Not all ethical violations break the law. But having a high ethical standard is not a requirement to be president. We have several examples of presidents with an ethical standard many would consider deficient.Let’s look at three moments where the oath bent under pressure.James Buchanan – The Man Who Watched the Union BurnImagine this. It’s 1857. The country is fracturing. A sharp economic downturn, the Panic of 1857, has shaken public confidence and threatens the livelihoods of thousands. Slavery has already turned Congress into a battlefield. The Kansas–Nebraska Act has opened the door to “popular sovereignty,” allowing settlers in new territories to vote on whether to allow slavery.Pro-slavery and anti-slavery protestors flood into Kansas. Violence breaks out; the territory earns a new name: Bleeding Kansas.Then, the Supreme Court delivers the Dred Scott decision. The Court declares that Black Americans can never be citizens. That the federal government has no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. That the Constitution itself offers no protection to the enslaved.In the middle of this firestorm, James Buchanan takes the oath of office. The country needed leadership more than ever.He swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. And then he proceeds to do ... almost nothing.Buchanan personally believed slavery was immoral. But he believed even more deeply that the Constitution gave him no power to act. He saw himself not as a leader, but as a caretaker of a document, and the document, he claimed, left no room for federal intervention.He was a staunch states’ rights advocate. When Southern states began seceding, South Carolina first in December 1860, Buchanan declared secession illegal ... but also claimed the federal government had no authority to stop it.His cabinet fell into chaos. Several members were Southern sympathizers. One of them, Secretary of War John Floyd, secretly funneled arms to the South. Buchanan, weak and indecisive, let it happen.So the Union dissolved while the President, bound by his narrow reading of the Constitution, stood aside.He felt he had done his duty. He said, “I feel that my duty has been faithfully, though it may be imperfectly, performed, and, whatever the result may be, I shall carry to my grave the consciousness that I at least meant well for my country.”He also recognized his leadership had failed. In a moment of despair, as the nation cracked beneath his inaction, Buchanan reportedly declared, “I am the last President of the United States!”It’s one of the most devastating examples of a president interpreting “to the best of my Ability” as a command to do nothing at all.And it left Lincoln to inherit a war that may have been prevented if the man before him had seen the oath not just as a legal clause, but as a moral charge.Andrew Johnson – The President Who Fought ReconstructionIn April 1865, the war was ending. The Union had held. And then, at Ford’s Theatre, John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln. Into that moment stepped Andrew Johnson, a Democrat from Tennessee, loyal to the Union but hostile to the idea of racial equality.He took the same oath Lincoln had taken: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.But Johnson didn’t use that oath to finish Lincoln’s work. He abused his veto power to preserve white supremacy.He vetoed civil rights legislation. He openly opposed the Fourteenth Amendment. He told white Southerners they could regain power quickly and face few consequences. As if the war had changed nothing, as if emancipation had never happened.He said, “It is the province of the Executive to see that the will of the people is carried out in the rehabilitation of the rebellious States, once more under the authority as well as the protection of the Union.”And when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the first law to declare all persons born in the United States as citizens, he vetoed that, too.Congress overrode him. Twice. It was the first time major legislation passed despite a presidential veto.Johnson argued he was defending the Constitution. That federal enforcement of civil rights was an overreach. That states had the right to decide, even if they used that right to deny freedom.He didn’t see Reconstruction as a duty. He saw it as an intrusion.And so, under the cover of “to the best of my ability,” Johnson tried to undo the meaning of Union victory.He became the first president in American history to be impeached. He survived conviction by one vote. But his legacy was clear: he used the oath not to heal the country, but to hold it back.Richard Nixon – The President Who Tried to Redefine the LawRichard Nixon took the oath in 1969. Then again in 1973. He swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.What followed was one of the most profound breaches of public trust in American history.Nixon authorized illegal wiretaps. He used the CIA to block FBI investigations. He compiled enemy lists, with the goal to “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” He used the IRS to target his political opponents. And then, when the Watergate break-in exposed the rot, he tried to cover it all up.He didn’t deny that he broke ethical norms. He didn’t even deny the facts. What he denied was that he could be held accountable.He told interviewer David Frost in 1977:“When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”President Richard Nixon’s name has an asterisk next to it in history books as the biggest crook to ever hold the office. The man who took an oath to defend the Constitution believed he was functionally above it.He saw the office not as a duty to the people, but as a shield against them. He interpreted “to the best of my ability” not as an internal check, but as a blank check. Nixon wasn’t after money or fame; he hungered for power, control, and a place among history’s greats. Nixon resigned before the House could impeach him. In his farewell speech, Nixon said plainly,“To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body.”But he left. In the end, even Nixon understood that while the oath might be vague, the consequences of breaking it could still find you.Fast Forward to Last WeekIn an NBC News interview, Kristen Welker asked President Trump if he’s duty-bound to uphold the Constitution.He answered, “I don’t know… I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”That answer says a lot. The oath doesn’t bind the lawyers. It binds the President. And yet, instead of owning that responsibility, he passed it off.Some lawmakers responded with outrage. But while they bicker, real people are out here hurting.We should be focused on our purpose. The Constitution gives us one: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.Justice is the first obligation. America doesn’t exist to serve the strong. It exists to protect the weak. That means every family has heat in the house and food on the table. No new burden on taxpayers. No ballooning bureaucracy. Just results. And that takes consensus. Political theater kills consensus.To any president who says they “don’t know” if they’re bound to defend the Constitution, we shouldn’t pretend. You don’t need to lie. We can just say it plainly. The office exists to serve the Constitution. And you are serving it to the best of your ability.But when you fail to meet even the most basic obligations, that reveals your ability. The Fifth Amendment protects all persons, including citizens, immigrants, and anyone under US jurisdiction, from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If we use taxpayer dollars to process, detain, or deport someone, they are under our jurisdiction. They are owed due process.History gives us examples of presidents who fell short. They have names that include Buchanan, Johnson, and Nixon. We remember none as great.Washington made himself small beneath the Constitution. We ask no less from anyone who follows.This isn’t a constitutional crisis. The system the framers built is strong. The Constitution gives the structure. But the oath still matters. The success of the presidency still depends on the person who takes the oath, and how they choose to fulfill it.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/studiokolomna/chamber-timeLicense code: IC3A9HDXIT3FAWUV Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    16:17
  • Are Tariffs a Government Theft of your Property?
    Tariffs will certainly raise prices at home. That’s their purpose. Tariffs are taxes. When a product crosses the border, a tariff adds a fee. The item is the same, the seller worked no harder, but government tilted the scale to favor domestic goods.So here’s the real question. If the state forces you to pay more than the market demands, and the extra money flows to a private pocket and not to a public good, is that a government theft of your property? It’s not as black and white as saying yes.Trade Walls and the Great Collapse(Background: somber string swell. An overture to a tragedy.)In 1929 America walked to the cliff’s edge. On the day historians now call Black Monday, October 28, the stock market plunged 13 percent. The next day, it fell another 12. And the slide continued.By mid‑November the market had surrendered half its value. But this was no abstract loss for wealthy speculators. Credit froze. Banks failed. Capital vanished.The drop tore through real people’s lives. Factories emptied, foreclosures surged, crime climbed. City tax bases collapsed; boarded windows lined dark streets. In manufacturing-heavy cities like Detroit and Chicago, unemployment reached 40 percent. On the plains, farmers who had expanded acreage during World War I and loaded themselves with debt to feed Allied armies now could not sell grain for the cost of planting it. Some burned corn for heat because coal was more expensive. Families lived in makeshift shacks made from scrap wood and tar paper.The shock ran so deep it took twenty-five years and twenty-five days, an entire generation, to recover. Only on November 23, 1954, did the Dow Jones Industrial Average climb back to its 1929 peak.It took the Second World War, an immense post‑war industrial boom, and the rise of a broad middle class to erase the wounds opened in those brutal weeks of 1929.…But in 1929, the nation was still reeling.Into that chaos stepped two well-meaning legislators: Senator Reed Smoot of Utah and Congressman Willis Hawley of Oregon. Smoot chaired the Senate Finance Committee. Hawley led the House Ways and Means Committee. Both were Republicans. Their fix looked simple on paper. They intended to raise tariffs and shield American jobs, especially in struggling farms and factories.Tariffs were nothing new. All through the nineteenth century they filled the federal treasury and sheltered northern mills before an income tax even existed. But by 1930, the economy was global. Exports mattered. War‑debtor Europe owed the United States billions, and America needed foreign buyers to keep those payments flowing. The system was fragile, stretched by World War I debts and sliding prices.This fragile system was about to get kicked in the teeth.Smoot and Hawley introduced their bill in 1929 as a narrow farm measure. Washington lobbyists smelled opportunity. Amendments poured in. Every senator, every representative, tacked on protection for home‑state industries. The schedule exploded.Tariffs climbed on more than twenty thousand imports, including shoes, lumber, eggs, cement, even musical instruments.[Sound cue: typewriters clacking rapidly, fading into thunder]Over a thousand economists signed a letter urging President Hoover to veto it. They warned it would spark retaliation and crush trade. Hoover, boxed in by party pressure and a panicked electorate, signed the Smoot‑Hawley Tariff Act into law on June 17, 1930.…That’s when the backlash began.Canada struck first, taxing American wheat and produce. Europe followed. Germany, France, Britain. The global economy was already fragile. Retaliation sent it into a spiral. Within a few years world trade fell more than sixty percent. American exports were cut in half. Factories shut their gates. Jobs vanished. Farms that hoped for relief found only isolation.[Background: wind blowing through an empty field]Unemployment soared past 20 percent. Dust storms rolled across the heartland.The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act didn’t cause the Great Depression. But it poured gasoline on the fire. It bruised American credibility and hardened global resentment. The lesson came fast and harsh: Economic nationalism backfires in a global crisis. Economists still cite the Smoot-Hawley Act as proof that fear-driven policy can deepen disaster .Voters felt the pain. In the 1930 midterms, Republicans lost both chambers of Congress by huge margins. Smoot and Hawley were “shown the door.”Even progressive Republicans who had campaigned for Hoover switched sides and backed Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. By his inauguration on March 4, 1933, banks were closing, unemployment hovered near twenty-five percent, and prices and productivity had fallen to one-third of their 1929 level .We now know FDR would lead the country through the Great Depression and to victory in World War II. He would go on to win four consecutive presidential campaigns. It would take 20 years and a war hero named Dwight Eisenhower for the Republicans to win the presidency again.Decades later, economists point to the Smoot-Hawley Act as the moment protectionism went too far.What are Tariffs?A tariff is a border tax. Each time a shipment enters the United States, from raw materials to cars, the US importer pays the tariff before the goods clear customs. That cost travels through the supply chain until it lands in the shopper’s cart.The Constitution calls such a fee an impost and grants only Congress the power to levy it.In the early Republic, tariffs kept the government running. We only had to pay for a small army, a handful of diplomats, and debt payments. Customs duties and land sales covered it all. No income tax. No redistribution. In that setting, tariffs were neutral revenue.Today, they play a different role. Lawmakers use them to shield selected industries. The higher price never builds a road or pays the debt. It settles in the profit line of the firm that now faces less competition.As a buyer, you pay more, without consent, to subsidize a private interest. The protected company can hold prices high and still move product. That extra margin is private gain created by government design.So the question stands.If the state makes you pay more than the market asks and the surplus flows to a private pocket, are tariffs a government theft of your property?Are Tariffs a Government Theft of Your Property?Let’s look first through the lens of the individual and their natural rights. The decisive purpose of governance is to preserve your life, liberty, and estate. Life is your own being. It includes every decision that keeps you alive and whole. By nature, you own yourself. Liberty is the right to choose a path that leads to fulfillment. When we chart our own course, we observe, plan, and act. Our choices bring results, good or bad, and from those results we develop skill, talent, and personal responsibility. What we do matters, but who we become by doing it matters more. Estate is the concrete result of that pursuit of happiness. It is your paycheck, the land you work, your tools, the food on your table, the heat in your house. It is everything earned by your labor and freely exchanged with others.We consent to governance so our representatives can preserve those rights. When government collects taxes to keep the peace, enforce contracts, and build institutions that enable Americans born in trailers and penthouses alike to be great, it strengthens the pillars. When it shifts wealth from many citizens to a favored few, it weakens them.The Constitution reflects that balance. Article I empowers Congress to collect tariffs to promote the general welfare. But that power has limits. The spending must serve everyone, not private lobbies. When public money settles in private hands, it no longer serves the people. It serves the powerful.America was built to protect the weak, not exalt the well‑connected. We owe allegiance to no king, no oligarch.And there is a second lens: not just citizen, but creator, builder, innovator, entrepreneur; anyone who brings something new into the world through mind and labor.The Creator’s RightsNow let’s switch lenses and see tariffs through the eyes of the creator, the builder, the entrepreneur.Creators share the same trinity of rights every person holds: life to think and act, liberty to choose a path, and estate to keep the value they earn. A competitive market is simply those rights at work.This market sets conditions supporting freedom from coercion, not shelter from stronger rivals. Every creator is an end in themselves. A business must win customers by persuasion, never by force. The moment a company runs to government for a tariff that inflates a rival’s cost, competition ends and confiscation begins, without the buyer’s consent. A tariff used in this way becomes legal plunder. It lifts money from many pockets and drops it into one. Real competition is buyers and sellers meeting on equal terms, each free to walk away. The state’s duty is to protect that freedom, not tilt it.The Constitution backs this logic. The Commerce Clause lets Congress regulate trade “to promote the general welfare.” That mandate directs open, dependable markets. Congress may clear barriers, chase fraud, and keep trade lanes clear. It may not enrich one faction by taxing all others. When tariffs privilege a lobby, they break the spirit of fair play.A competitive market environment rests on three conditions: First, rule of law that protects contracts and property. Second, a neutral government that blocks entry to no one and grants no special favors. Third, open information that lets every buyer and seller judge value for themselves.When we establish and maintain this business environment, the rights of the producer and the rights of the consumer align, because every exchange is voluntary. Businesses have a right to a fair and competitive arena. This means an arena free of special privilege, not free of challenge.Viewed this way, broad tariffs distort consent, misalign incentives, and reward political access over earned value.But that’s not the end of the debate.There are serious arguments in favor of tariffs. They can defend national security, answer foreign coercion, or shelter a fragile industry long enough to stand on its own. Those claims deserve a closer look.The Strategic Case For TariffsTariffs are strategically compelling in three areas.First, tariffs are needed for national security. Some items are too important to depend on other countries. America needs to be able to build each and every piece of an Abrams tank or a Strike Eagle fighter inside the country. We need the inherent capability to make every part, from computer chips for fighter jets to rare earth magnets for guided missiles. If we can’t build these items in-house, and a war or embargo cuts the supply, we won’t be able to achieve national objectives. A tariff can push factories to build those parts here at home. Yes, it adds cost, but it pays for itself in risk. Second, trade only works when both countries play by the rules. If another country blocks our products, forces us to hand over technology, or pays heavy subsidies to its own firms, our businesses can’t compete. A targeted tariff can be a bargaining chip. Third, young industries. Some businesses start with big upfront costs and need time to grow strong. Early American steel, Japanese cars in the 1950s, and South Korean shipyards in the 1970s all asked for short-duration tariffs while they scaled up. The need to protect these infant capabilities was clear, so they could compete on their own later.But all three of these examples share a commonality. Tariffs must serve everyone, not just one company. Except for national security, they must be temporary and end once the goal is reached. And they must pass scrutiny. Tariffs must end if industry prices stay artificially high or innovation stalls.In short, strategic tariffs can be justified if they are narrow, temporary, and transparent. Broad tariffs rarely meet that test.So, are tariffs a government theft of your property?Tariffs lift prices at home. That is their purpose. They are taxes paid each time an import crosses the border.If Congress paired those duties with equal tax cuts for ordinary families, tariffs might serve American families. That rarely happens. Relief flows upward instead. Right now, Congress looks to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which “skews in favor of wealthy Americans, who would see more tax relief not only in the dollar amount but as a percentage of income.” Without offset, a tariff is simply a hidden tax. Working families, not wealthy ones, pay the price.Broad, permanent duties threaten your estate. They drain wealth from many and deliver it to a privileged few. Prices climb, choice shrinks, competition thins, all without consumer consent.Still, not every tariff is unjust. A measure that truly guards national security or corrects foreign coercion can be justified, if it stays targeted, temporary, and transparent. It must protect the whole country, not just favored producers.The real question is motive. Does a tariff serve the nation or the wealthy lobby?In the end, every tariff faces a single test. The Constitution outlines six national goals: union, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty. Do these tariffs move us closer to even one?If a tariff is targeted, temporary, and transparent, the answer can be yes. Tariffs that genuinely protect national security, level the playing field against foreign coercion, or briefly shelter critical new industries can enhance our union, strengthen justice, and provide for the common welfare.But broad, permanent tariffs that enrich a handful of companies at everyone else’s expense do the opposite. They weaken economic justice, disrupt domestic tranquility, and erode personal liberty. They tilt America away from fairness and toward privilege. They distort incentives, drive up costs, and quietly confiscate property.So, the answer to our question depends entirely on intent and design. Good tariffs serve clear national goals that benefit everyone, while bad tariffs serve only private interests.If we can’t clearly explain how a tariff moves America closer to at least one of our goals, then we already have our answer.May God bless the United States of America.Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/hele/the-wolf-the-bearLicense code: MZQHKZONYCHE3JS3 Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
    --------  
    18:51

More Society & Culture podcasts

About I Believe

Governance and Philosophy in America | Top 10 🇺🇸 Podcast (Philosophy) joelkdouglas.substack.com
Podcast website

Listen to I Believe, The Best People with Nicolle Wallace and many other podcasts from around the world with the radio.net app

Get the free radio.net app

  • Stations and podcasts to bookmark
  • Stream via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth
  • Supports Carplay & Android Auto
  • Many other app features
Social
v7.18.5 | © 2007-2025 radio.de GmbH
Generated: 6/16/2025 - 12:50:38 AM