The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.
The Democrat party has just taken a huge step. For the first time, it has openly embraced not merely hard-left socialism, but the bloody and evil antisemitism of its radical Islamist allies.
The hard left—whether you denominate them socialists, communists, or progressives—are determined to destroy traditional Western Civilization and the Judaeo-Christian religions that are its foundation. Then they would rule over the ruins.
This has been true ever since socialism and state-mandated atheism were birthed in 1792, in the crucible of the French Revolution. It has been true since Karl Marx, the virulent antisemite, wrote in 1843 On the Jewish Question, linking Jews to capitalism, the main enemy of Marx’s communist utopia to come. And it has been true since the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party made an alliance with radical Islamists in Jerusalem in 1941.
Indeed, ever since Hitler’s alliance with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the hard left and radical Islam have been in a blood-soaked partnership. Radical Islamists, like the hard left, are dedicated to the destruction of Western Civilization. Radical Islamists, like the hard left, are inveterate enemies of Judaism and Christianity, seeking to destroy those religions.
Until recently, socialists and Islamists were on the very fringes of American society, only spreading their cancer in our nation’s ivory towers. But as was inevitable, that cancer has now leaked into society. The cancer announced its arrival with the victory of Zohran Mamdani in the Democrat primary for Mayor of New York City. Mamdani is both a socialist and an Islamist who has called to “globalize” the bloody war on Jews, “the intifada.”
One could take some comfort in the fact that the election of Mamdani was simply in one city, but then the unthinkable happened. The leader of the Democratic National Committee, Ken Martin, appearing on the PBS Newshour, has given his imprimatur, not only to the hard-left socialists, but to their embrace of radical Islam and its war on Jews as well. The evil is now mainstream and acceptable.
The dissimulation from Martin is stomach-churning. “Globalize the Intifada” is not a call for “debate.” It is a call for genocide.
Moreover, while this embrace of a dangerous fringe may allow Democrats to win elections, the costs will be paid by the nation at large. Mamdani and his ilk have nothing in common with the Democrats of old. They do not seek to argue about strengthening government institutions and redirecting policy around the center. They seek only to tear down government institutions and use each resulting crisis as a justification for more power and control.
Dean Phillips, despite trying desperately to deflect to almost non-existent problems among Republicans, has conceded that the new Democrats cannot coexist with the old ones:
On a final note, the hard left does not seem to have thought through their alliance and what will happen when they and their radical Islamic allies succeed in their efforts to tear down society. The hard left expects to rule over the ruins in a socialist, atheist paradise where the Constitution says whatever they want it to say. That is suicidally naïve. A millennium of history tells us that the Islamists are far more likely to toss the hard-left off rooftops than they are to share power with the godless, and that the Constitution will take on a complexion that matches.
She’s worried a conservative prof hired for being conservative might be rigid and inflexible in his or her thinking.
Me thinks she might be telling on herself. Of course, she’s not rigid and inflexible in her thinking. Oh no. She offers, by way of proof of her reasonableness, that she teaches one libertarian philosopher. And why does she do this, in her view, magnanimous thing? Because she wants her “liberal students to be challenged” and her “libertarian students to think carefully about the arguments that support their position.”
Kind of a lot to unpack there. That thought is heavy with implications. You’ll note the liberal students are not invited to “think carefully about the arguments that support their position,” only the libertarian students are invited or expected to do that. The liberal students will be coddled and calmed down should they be triggered, presumably.
And, of course, she says all this in a New York Times op-ed discouraging viewpoint diversity, but because this opinion is purportedly based on her concern that these poor conservative professors would experience a kind of existential angst about having to stay conservative to keep their jobs, we’re just supposed to overlook that, I guess. She must think they don’t know their own minds as well as she clearly does and could be easily swayed, I suppose? Once they are exposed to their colleagues’ progressive enlightenment?
Why is it when progressives talk about people who aren’t like them it’s always with a sense of pitying superiority? That if only these poor slobs would avail themselves of their enlightened benevolence, these rubes would discover what it is to be right with the world?
She also spends quite a bit of time talking about conservative students and professors admitted or hired for being conservative as being easy to spot somehow. Honestly it’s kind of creepy. Does she think they’ll all be wearing a scarlet letter? How would she know? Oh, to be sure, word would get around that one of “them” was on campus, but that, in and of itself, demonstrates the fragility of her position: “they” are distinct from the progressive establishment and must be treated differently. Sounds kind of rigid and inflexible to me. There is, of course, the available option of just being equally civil to every colleague, but I guess that’s outside the realm of possibility, in her
She concedes that “many” people think having more ideological diversity on campus would be a good thing, reasoning that “certainly, there is not enough engagement with conservative ideas on college campuses.”
Conservatives have criticized identity-based affirmative action because, they suggest, it imposes an expectation on students of color that they will represent what is presumed to be, say, the Black or Latino view on any given issue, which discourages freethinking. Admitting students for viewpoint diversity would turn the holding of conservative ideas into a quasi-identity, subject to some of the same concerns. Students admitted to help restore ideological balance would likely feel a responsibility to defend certain views, reless of the force of opposing arguments they might encounter.
“[R]egardless of the force of opposing arguments they might encounter.” Yet another thought heavy with implications from the good professor. One might read that to mean that the progressive argument, being so obviously right, should be accepted, and that should it not, it’s due to conservative intransigence, not progressive intransigence. Now who’s rigid and inflexible?
It’s important not to overlook her implicit admission here about race: that “the Black or Latino” view is expected. I’m sure she didn’t mean to admit that, but she
She admitted quite a bit in this op-ed, and none of it good. Either way, she gets what she wants: discouragement of diversity of thought, which was her point.
What is more important — wealth or health? Do you prefer to be loved by adoring strangers or by close members of your family? When you depart this world, would you rather be remembered for your political power or moral courage? Is the cultivation of a virtuous character more valuable than the accumulation of material things?
I ask these questions to highlight how much power you have over your own life. I often receive messages from people who are worried about the future. Some sound despondent about the challenges ahead. Some are happy that President Trump did this and unhappy that he did that. Some seem so engrossed in the turbulent world of politics that they struggle to be upbeat about more important things.
I am an ordinary sinner with no special knowledge about our existence, and my intention is not to lecture others. I do wish to remind people, though, that they are in control. No matter how coercive governments and corporations are, we are still masters of our fates. We decide what we believe. We decide how we will act. We decide what costs we are willing to bear in defense of our principles.
There is something liberating in the acknowledgment of these simple facts. Surely our principles aren’t really our principles until we are willing to suffer in defense of them. Our earthly struggles are the grindstones that sharpen our moral virtue. Adversity is as much a blessing as it is a burden.
Those who worry so much about the future that they squander the 86,400 seconds each day sacrifice present happiness. And happiness, as I suggest in the first paragraph, cannot be bought. Fame is a shabby substitute for love. Just consider how many celebrities use alcohol and drugs to treat their depression. Likewise, the size of your home or bank account reveals nothing about your worth. Wealthy people die every day. Their possessions do not make their lives exemplary. Moral excellence, on the other hand, is rare in this world. The life of a poor but virtuous person is more extraordinary than the life of a wealthy but dishonorable one. Strength can be found in remembering that.
Advancements in artificial intelligence (A.I.) worry people. Every week, a major news publication is accused of publishing A.I.-written articles. Students are turning in A.I.-written assignments as their own work. Professions, including medicine and law, are increasingly relying on A.I. tools for both problem-solving and finished reports. Some people connect these dots and conclude that not only will there be no human jobs in the future, but also there will be no thinking human beings.
Allow me to offer an even more startling glimpse into the future. As A.I. becomes more adept at mimicking the great writers of the past, it will not stop once it corners the market on popular fiction. The Big Tech companies that are building A.I. infrastructure today are the same companies that store all our emails, text messages, and social media posts. You didn’t think that they provided “free” accounts all these years out of the kindness of their corporate hearts, did you? What happens when an A.I. system uses everything you’ve written in the twenty-first century to mimic your writing style in a personal message to a loved one? The more competent that A.I. becomes, the more difficult it will be to know for sure who is communicating with us.
Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, it is easy to see how foreign adversaries (or unsavory domestic intelligence services) might one day use A.I. to foment social unrest by impersonating the friends and family members of millions of citizens instantaneously. Will we be forced to verify one another’s digital identities to avoid confusion and deception?
Surely that won’t work, either. For decades, companies such as Google and Apple have requested that we answer a series of “security” questions, ostensibly to help them verify our identities should we get locked out of our accounts. As any computer engineer with expertise in algorithms and probability can tell you, a small amount of personal information is highly predictive at generating an individual’s likely passwords. Next time you tell Big Tech or Big Brother your first pet’s name, childhood address, or high school mascot, remember that some A.I. is using that information to build a digital profile on you in cyberspace. Is it any wonder why government agencies are the silent partners of every tech company?
In a world where our digital identities may never be secure, what is one to do? Perhaps we will relearn the value of human interaction. Perhaps we will realize that we are only as secure as our personal relationships are strong. In fact, it is entirely possible that one outcome of a future dominated by A.I. is a renewed appreciation for human-intensive work.
Have you noticed, for instance, that the market for handmade furniture and crafts has grown steadily since the ’90s? What happened around that time? The World Wide Web crisscrossed the planet. Ironically, technological innovation actually renewed consumer demand for trade skills that were in obvious decline.
The twentieth century gave us the modern factory, and rapid technological growth increased manufacturing productivity exponentially. But those “advancements” came with serious costs. Jobs were lost to international trade as multinational firms chose cheap foreign labor over domestic producers. Quality also declined, and consumers who once expected appliances to last decades were forced to accept that goods barely survived a manufacturer’s limited warranty.
People fed up with cheaply made products have used the internet to find human producers who would otherwise never be able to survive in a globalized world of Big Box fabrications. Thirty years ago, this trend seemed unlikely. Today, it is an undeniable reality. An increasing number of consumers would rather purchase quality handmade goods than mass-produced facsimiles that cannot withstand the rigors of time. There is a reason why Amish furniture is in high demand today.
Do not be surprised if a similar effect follows advancements with A.I. The more that artificial intelligence dominates life, the more that real intelligence will become a precious commodity. There will be a moment when an individual’s skill and education are prized because the A.I.-enabled knockoffs appear as hollow imitations of human creativity. There will be a moment when human interactions are cherished because digital interactions can’t be trusted. There will be a moment when personal knowledge and character will be valued for their human authenticity. Technological revolutions impact human history in unexpected ways.
For millennia, a good sword was expensive and required time and skill to wield well. Big, strong swordsmen had a distinct advantage. The handgun, however, quickly leveled the playing field. As was often said of Samuel Colt’s famous revolver, “God created men; Colonel Colt made them equal.” A lightweight AR-15-style rifle provides a small woman with the power to defend herself against a large man. Firearms have democratized self-defense.
Similarly, the printing press, radio, television, and personal computer have democratized communication. Although governments have had varying success in using these innovations to maintain power, there is no doubt that the information revolution of the last five hundred years has narrowed the knowledge gap between the wealthiest and the poorest more significantly than during any other period in history. And whatever happens with A.I. over the next few years, there is no doubt in my mind that a similar democratizing effect will accompany its proliferation — irrespective of the wishes of today’s “ruling class.”
In the midst of great change, certain things remain constant. We humans love and seek to be loved. We are remembered for our virtues and moral failings. We find sustained purpose in our relationships with God and our families. Let us hold fast to these truths.
Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong.
In 1945, Edward Lowe (1920-1995) created an industry when he developed a clay- based cat box filler as a favor to a friend. Upon realizing the potential of his product, he faithfully pursued informing people of the need his new Kitty Litter® could fill.
More than any man, Ed Lowe brought the cat in from the barn and out of the alley. Ed and the housebroken cat revolutionized the way people thought about cats and literally made them into America’s favorite pet.
In 1985, Ed turned his attention to helping other entrepreneurs achieve their own goals by creating the Edward Lowe Foundation, a resource center dedicated to helping entrepreneurs and small-business people through educational programs, information services, research tools, and other support services.
Quotes
“The real roots of economic growth in the United States came about through the ingenious efforts of the entrepreneurial-spirited individuals and their small, independent companies, rather than through the giant companies. We must give redit to the mountain of men of the past – from them came the grassroots of American greatness.”
“My life has been a testimony to the credo of the entrepreneur. People like me who have lived the dream should share their knowledge with others, because if private sector business doesn’t help–then the American entrepreneur won’t survive,”
“As a general rule, change is brought about by discontent.”
Entrepreneurship at an early age
A determined young entrepreneur with several businesses – some successful, some not – under his belt, Ed drew on his father’s inspiration to drive him in pursuing his own dreams. After completing high school and serving four years in the U.S. Navy, he joined his father in the family coal and sawdust business. Realizing the commercial potential for his processed clay product, Ed left the family business and began the task of marketing Kitty Litter® full time.
The early cat box filler years were dominated by Ed’s uncommon perseverance. Literally hauling a trailer full of his new product from cat show to cat show across the country, he would provide free litter to each show’s sponsor, in return for booth space from which to show off his wares. Word soon spread, and the business took off, eventually turning Edward Lowe Industries into a multi-million-dollar, multinational enterprise. In 1991, Ed sold the cat box filler portion of the business, focusing instead on the creation of new, innovative products for the agricultural and chemical industries, among others.
Key thoughts for entrepreneurs
Among the most notable of Lowe’s successful elements was his undiminished determination and belief in what he was doing.
Upon marketing Kitty Litter® to pet stores, Lowe also noted a larger market in grocery stores. Opposition from pet stores spurred him to create a separate brand, Tidy Cat® for grocery stores so as to not infringe upon the pet store customer base.
Realizing the difficulties small-business people face in competing against large companies, Lowe created the Edward Lowe Foundation to assist entrepreneurs by acting as an informational resource.
Poetry
Ed Lowe felt that pondering was an important part of life. Some of his most creative ideas came to him during the hours he would spend reflecting in his hometown of Cassopolis. He and his wife, Darlene, put together many collections of poetry about their lives and the undying passion they both had for championing the entrepreneurial spirit. Here is a sample:
Oh, Entrepreneur
You have an unending desire to do something. And when you do something, you have an Unending desire to do something else.
You have an unending desire to be someplace. But when you are someplace, you have an Unending desire to be someplace else.
You have a mysterious ability to explain something Without being understood – mysterious and Misunderstood, even to yourself at times.
You have the ability to see what is not there, Construct in your mind things not constructed – Piece together fragments of flitting thoughts And at the proper time mold them into reality. You have an inborn instinct to know what is right And what is wrong – many times only On the verge, but you know!
Your many urges, desires and impulses are like The tide of the sea – always coming and going, Thoughts, like the waves instructed by the wind, Dictating whether they are lazy swells, choppy whitecaps Or thundering mounts – they cascade Through your mind with uncontrolled direction.
It’s not easy to give up; it’s not easy to stay put; It’s not easy to go on riding wave after wave Of this unsatisfied impulse; to move, to construct, To dream, to do, but be instructed not to do.
The secret to satisfaction and success, then, Must be dealt with very carefully by controlling And adjusting the scales of deed to a delicate balance; A balance that will be compatible with your own. Strengths and weaknesses. But be wary that they do not become overbearing. To those who do not understand.
So pledge to the creed, Oh, Entrepreneur, Bypass the negative, be patient with the structured, Be passive with the limited, be understanding to Those who are naïve – But never let your words, thoughts and deeds Be smothered by those who cannot understand!
This was another week in what has become a regular occurrence: being contacted by concerned parents seeking advice on why their school is spiraling out of control, with their kid being caught up in the collateral damage. The feeling is akin to a song the 90s rock band Offspring composed but brought sharply into focus in 2025, The Kids Aren’t Alright, but neither are the parents and schools.
I want to offer my observations as someone who has been in the teaching trade for nearly two decades, and the strategies which are working.
“I Want to Kill Myself”
As dramatic as this sounds, many teenagers contemplate suicide, even if only for a fleeting moment, as they struggle to find their place in society. What is different now is the strength of emotion experienced by some, resulting in it being vocalized as a solution to difficulties felt in their well-being. Whilst this drastic expression is not widespread, it was virtually non-existent prior to 2020.
In what is unlikely to be an isolated occurrence, A/Prof of Child & Adolescent psychiatry Peter Parry, in his evidence in the Terms of Reference to the Australian Government for a Covid-19 Royal Commission reported “five high school aged adolescents tragically losing their lives across South-East Qld in the final two weeks before the government announcement that the schools were going to reopen. I was on call over the middle weekend and aware that in perhaps three of these cases statements of suicidal ideation because they couldn’t see their friends.”
Kids Just Need to Get Over It and Build Some Resilience
I want to address a new strain of an existing challenge which has occurred – emotional regulation. Imagine a 15-year-old boy, full of energy and rapid physical development, and the challenges he has with impulse control at the best of times. Now imagine a 13-year-old brain in that body. What would be the expected result? I would suggest a lack of ability to emotionally self-regulate, a rise in recalcitrant behavior, often followed by an outburst of tears or overemotive responses. This is what is occurring, and at rates I haven’t seen before.
According to the University of Oxford 2024 World Happiness Report, “For the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, happiness has decreased in all age groups, but especially for the young, so much so that the young are now, in 2021-2023, the least happy age group. This is a big change from 2006-2010, when the young were happier than those in the midlife groups, and about as happy as those aged 60 and over…and greater for females than males.” The kids are not alright and just saying they should “get over it” misconstrues the enormity of the challenge before us.
Parental Priorities
Feedback and surveys have revealed a trend away from parents prioritizing academic success and towards child well-being. Whilst this is an admirable quality, in my opinion, it is somewhat misguided. I believe in naming the problem, recognizing it as a challenge, but not letting it become the determiner of someone’s life. Having said that, the children in our care are not ours. They have parents who have lovingly brought them into the world and are their advocates and responsibility.
The Teacher Tested My Child on Things They Haven’t Been Taught
I have heard this comment from many distressed parents who have contacted me across differing schools and regions, and it isn’t true. Parents, a word from the wise: if your child says this, be skeptical and contact the teacher. Ask with respect and you should get a respectful response. It may be that your child is the victim of the dreaded testing on topics not learnt, but they will be one of a tiny number. It is, however, emblematic of a cultural shift which has taken place, and our overly bureaucratic educational system has been unable to adjust to. It may be that your child has missed lessons in the leadup to a test and has lacked the proactive discipline to be responsible for catching up or there could be some other reason. Nevertheless, this complaint has increased in epidemic proportion since 2020, despite the increasing prevalence of online platforms that contain lesson content and notifications.
Turnover of Staff
Some schools have reported a 50% turnover in staff since 2021, with many experienced teachers leaving the profession altogether. Any business would face significant impact to their operations with this level of turnover, and it is likely that most schools face equivalent challenges. The events from 2020 have exacerbated this, but I don’t believe such a high rate of churn is inevitable.
What Has Been the Governmental Response?
The obvious course of action following a significant and sustained event like a lockdown would be to focus on minimizing change and maximizing opportunities for teachers to dedicate their time to any learning and developmental gaps created whilst providing a stable working environment. This, however, has not been the focus of many education departments, which have subsequently changed their syllabus or introduced philosophies of questionable value. In the absence of detailed Cost-Benefit Analyses, it is difficult to understand the justification of such decisions.
One example of this is the California Mathematics Framework, which has devoted four of fourteen chapters to equity and related terms, justifying this with “Empowering students with tools to examine inequities and address important issues in their lives and communities. In this second aspect of teaching for social justice, teachers use mathematics to analyze and discuss issues of fairness and justice and to make mathematics relevant and engaging to students. In an elementary school classroom this might include students studying counting and comparing to understand fairness in the context of current and historical events.”
Frankly, in the current climate, I would settle for an 11-year-old knowing their times tables and a basic understanding of fractions. Why confuse kids with concepts they have not established the foundations for, and which will not help their technical knowledge of mathematics in successive years?
What Is Working?
A successful strategy that has yielded positive results has been deliberate and proactive communication with families. Our small department has contacted over 150 families since the beginning of the year. This communication has built relationships that have established trust and fostered a spirit of friendship and partnership. This has avoided claims of not being taught the right content and has encouraged students to buy into their learning. Traditionally, parents are apprehensive about receiving a call from their child’s teacher. There is a pause when the parent hears your voice, and you can almost hear their thoughts – “What has my child done? Is the teacher picking on my kid? Don’t they understand what is going on in our lives?” The change in tone, when they hear of something good which has been observed or that you are just asking for their expectations for their child, is usually profound. The low, pensive tone in their voice morphs into a high, upbeat melody. This often presents the opportunity to establish adult communication.
Many parents seek to shift responsibility to teachers, so don’t let them. Reaffirm their importance in the education process and in their child’s life through something positive observed, preferably relating to them. Perhaps, over time, you can have honest conversations as to the causes of the extra troubles you have noted. You may even help release them from the bonds of deep-seated guilt they may have been carrying around like the proverbial albatross.
In an industry that has had a history of contentious results from initiatives, the speed at which the difference our faculty initiatives have had has surprised me. We recently completed a round of the best-attended parent-teacher interviews in a long time, with parent engagement higher than ever. What was just as surprising, however, was not only the appreciation and honesty expressed by parents but the change in conversation. There was no antagonism, and each interview was constructive, open, and in a spirit of partnership for the benefit of their child. There are no guarantees, of course, but I am delighted at the parent and student engagement at the end of a term when all parties are tired and prone to unwise comments and actions.
Early on in a role as a project manager in the IT industry, I sought advice from an older and wiser project director on what was the most important aspect of the job. He paused for thought and responded, “God made us with one mouth and two ears that we use them in that proportion.” If you are not hearing the types of comments outlined, may I suggest prioritizing listening. Have more conversations with parents and kids, and get to know them and the challenges they face better. You could be rewarded with a new level of intimate knowledge previously hidden. This will help you positively influence the reality of today’s culture.
The words attributed to Bonhoeffer offer us all a timely reminder: “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” My prayers are with you as you navigate the trials and challenges of this valuable journey.
Jason StreckerJason has over 15 years of experience in education and currently serves as Head of Mathematics. During this time, he established accelerated programs and introduced Cost Benefit Analysis to students. He also serves as co-director for Australians for Science and Freedom (ASF) where he has presented the challenges and solutions in schooling.Prior to teaching, Jason held several positions in the IT industry in small to large businesses in private and public ventures. This included responsibility for the largest enterprise management environment in Australia at over a hundred thousand devices.Jason has authored articles on the effects of government policy, the impact of cultural change and the response of institutions such as the church. He is a contributor to the Brownstone Institute and has been interviewed on a variety of platforms.He also made submissions to the Australian senate covid inquiry, preparing sections on the impact of lockdowns, mandates and school closures on young people and their education.Jason feels privileged to have the opportunity to make personal connections which he uses to broaden his understanding and that of his students in the fields of IT, health, indigenous affairs, engineering, economics and global perspectives.View all posts
Donate Today
Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.
Our prime task is the unglamorous—and for many in this culture that worships action for action’s sake—unsatisfying task of circling back to things like love, compassion, friendship, touch, and sincere…
We are in the middle of what may be the biggest fertility crisis in the history of mankind. The governments of many European countries have the data that would unlock…
What has changed is that there has been a concerted psychological campaign to effectively insert abstract and often empirically questionable paradigms of sickness between individual citizens and their understanding of…
The person most associated with civil disobedience is Mahatma Gandhi. In effect, he instrumentalised, operationalised, and weaponised Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience (1849), turning it into an effective technique for…
This was another week in what has become a regular occurrence: being contacted by concerned parents seeking advice on why their school is spiraling out of control, with their kid being caught up in the collateral damage. The feeling is akin to a song the 90s rock band Offspring composed but brought sharply into focus in 2025, The Kids Aren’t Alright, but neither are the parents and schools.
I want to offer my observations as someone who has been in the teaching trade for nearly two decades, and the strategies which are working.
“I Want to Kill Myself”
As dramatic as this sounds, many teenagers contemplate suicide, even if only for a fleeting moment, as they struggle to find their place in society. What is different now is the strength of emotion experienced by some, resulting in it being vocalized as a solution to difficulties felt in their well-being. Whilst this drastic expression is not widespread, it was virtually non-existent prior to 2020.
In what is unlikely to be an isolated occurrence, A/Prof of Child & Adolescent psychiatry Peter Parry, in his evidence in the Terms of Reference to the Australian Government for a Covid-19 Royal Commission reported “five high school aged adolescents tragically losing their lives across South-East Qld in the final two weeks before the government announcement that the schools were going to reopen. I was on call over the middle weekend and aware that in perhaps three of these cases statements of suicidal ideation because they couldn’t see their friends.”
Kids Just Need to Get Over It and Build Some Resilience
I want to address a new strain of an existing challenge which has occurred – emotional regulation. Imagine a 15-year-old boy, full of energy and rapid physical development, and the challenges he has with impulse control at the best of times. Now imagine a 13-year-old brain in that body. What would be the expected result? I would suggest a lack of ability to emotionally self-regulate, a rise in recalcitrant behavior, often followed by an outburst of tears or overemotive responses. This is what is occurring, and at rates I haven’t seen before.
According to the University of Oxford 2024 World Happiness Report, “For the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, happiness has decreased in all age groups, but especially for the young, so much so that the young are now, in 2021-2023, the least happy age group. This is a big change from 2006-2010, when the young were happier than those in the midlife groups, and about as happy as those aged 60 and over…and greater for females than males.” The kids are not alright and just saying they should “get over it” misconstrues the enormity of the challenge before us.
Parental Priorities
Feedback and surveys have revealed a trend away from parents prioritizing academic success and towards child well-being. Whilst this is an admirable quality, in my opinion, it is somewhat misguided. I believe in naming the problem, recognizing it as a challenge, but not letting it become the determiner of someone’s life. Having said that, the children in our care are not ours. They have parents who have lovingly brought them into the world and are their advocates and responsibility.
The Teacher Tested My Child on Things They Haven’t Been Taught
I have heard this comment from many distressed parents who have contacted me across differing schools and regions, and it isn’t true. Parents, a word from the wise: if your child says this, be skeptical and contact the teacher. Ask with respect and you should get a respectful response. It may be that your child is the victim of the dreaded testing on topics not learnt, but they will be one of a tiny number. It is, however, emblematic of a cultural shift which has taken place, and our overly bureaucratic educational system has been unable to adjust to. It may be that your child has missed lessons in the leadup to a test and has lacked the proactive discipline to be responsible for catching up or there could be some other reason. Nevertheless, this complaint has increased in epidemic proportion since 2020, despite the increasing prevalence of online platforms that contain lesson content and notifications.
Turnover of Staff
Some schools have reported a 50% turnover in staff since 2021, with many experienced teachers leaving the profession altogether. Any business would face significant impact to their operations with this level of turnover, and it is likely that most schools face equivalent challenges. The events from 2020 have exacerbated this, but I don’t believe such a high rate of churn is inevitable.
What Has Been the Governmental Response?
The obvious course of action following a significant and sustained event like a lockdown would be to focus on minimizing change and maximizing opportunities for teachers to dedicate their time to any learning and developmental gaps created whilst providing a stable working environment. This, however, has not been the focus of many education departments, which have subsequently changed their syllabus or introduced philosophies of questionable value. In the absence of detailed Cost-Benefit Analyses, it is difficult to understand the justification of such decisions.
One example of this is the California Mathematics Framework, which has devoted four of fourteen chapters to equity and related terms, justifying this with “Empowering students with tools to examine inequities and address important issues in their lives and communities. In this second aspect of teaching for social justice, teachers use mathematics to analyze and discuss issues of fairness and justice and to make mathematics relevant and engaging to students. In an elementary school classroom this might include students studying counting and comparing to understand fairness in the context of current and historical events.”
Frankly, in the current climate, I would settle for an 11-year-old knowing their times tables and a basic understanding of fractions. Why confuse kids with concepts they have not established the foundations for, and which will not help their technical knowledge of mathematics in successive years?
What Is Working?
A successful strategy that has yielded positive results has been deliberate and proactive communication with families. Our small department has contacted over 150 families since the beginning of the year. This communication has built relationships that have established trust and fostered a spirit of friendship and partnership. This has avoided claims of not being taught the right content and has encouraged students to buy into their learning. Traditionally, parents are apprehensive about receiving a call from their child’s teacher. There is a pause when the parent hears your voice, and you can almost hear their thoughts – “What has my child done? Is the teacher picking on my kid? Don’t they understand what is going on in our lives?” The change in tone, when they hear of something good which has been observed or that you are just asking for their expectations for their child, is usually profound. The low, pensive tone in their voice morphs into a high, upbeat melody. This often presents the opportunity to establish adult communication.
Many parents seek to shift responsibility to teachers, so don’t let them. Reaffirm their importance in the education process and in their child’s life through something positive observed, preferably relating to them. Perhaps, over time, you can have honest conversations as to the causes of the extra troubles you have noted. You may even help release them from the bonds of deep-seated guilt they may have been carrying around like the proverbial albatross.
In an industry that has had a history of contentious results from initiatives, the speed at which the difference our faculty initiatives have had has surprised me. We recently completed a round of the best-attended parent-teacher interviews in a long time, with parent engagement higher than ever. What was just as surprising, however, was not only the appreciation and honesty expressed by parents but the change in conversation. There was no antagonism, and each interview was constructive, open, and in a spirit of partnership for the benefit of their child. There are no guarantees, of course, but I am delighted at the parent and student engagement at the end of a term when all parties are tired and prone to unwise comments and actions.
Early on in a role as a project manager in the IT industry, I sought advice from an older and wiser project director on what was the most important aspect of the job. He paused for thought and responded, “God made us with one mouth and two ears that we use them in that proportion.” If you are not hearing the types of comments outlined, may I suggest prioritizing listening. Have more conversations with parents and kids, and get to know them and the challenges they face better. You could be rewarded with a new level of intimate knowledge previously hidden. This will help you positively influence the reality of today’s culture.
The words attributed to Bonhoeffer offer us all a timely reminder: “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” My prayers are with you as you navigate the trials and challenges of this valuable journey.
Jason StreckerJason has over 15 years of experience in education and currently serves as Head of Mathematics. During this time, he established accelerated programs and introduced Cost Benefit Analysis to students. He also serves as co-director for Australians for Science and Freedom (ASF) where he has presented the challenges and solutions in schooling.Prior to teaching, Jason held several positions in the IT industry in small to large businesses in private and public ventures. This included responsibility for the largest enterprise management environment in Australia at over a hundred thousand devices.Jason has authored articles on the effects of government policy, the impact of cultural change and the response of institutions such as the church. He is a contributor to the Brownstone Institute and has been interviewed on a variety of platforms.He also made submissions to the Australian senate covid inquiry, preparing sections on the impact of lockdowns, mandates and school closures on young people and their education.Jason feels privileged to have the opportunity to make personal connections which he uses to broaden his understanding and that of his students in the fields of IT, health, indigenous affairs, engineering, economics and global perspectives.View all posts
Donate Today
Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.
Our prime task is the unglamorous—and for many in this culture that worships action for action’s sake—unsatisfying task of circling back to things like love, compassion, friendship, touch, and sincere…
We are in the middle of what may be the biggest fertility crisis in the history of mankind. The governments of many European countries have the data that would unlock…
What has changed is that there has been a concerted psychological campaign to effectively insert abstract and often empirically questionable paradigms of sickness between individual citizens and their understanding of…
The person most associated with civil disobedience is Mahatma Gandhi. In effect, he instrumentalised, operationalised, and weaponised Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience (1849), turning it into an effective technique for…
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — Taiwan on Wednesday launched annual military exercises intended to guard against Chinese threats to invade, including using so-called “gray zone tactics” deployed by China that stop just short of open warfare.
This year’s 10-day live-fire Han Guang drills are the longest yet and follow the delivery of a range of new weaponry from tanks to unmanned waterborne drones. The drills in Taiwan come as regional tensions and harassment by China and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are increasing.
China claims Taiwan as its territory to be annexed by force if necessary, while the vast majority of Taiwanese wish to become fully independent or retain their current status of de-facto independence.
The drills began with exercises to counter the actions of Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia ships that have been harassing Taiwanese ships around offshore island groups close to the Chinese coast, the Defense Ministry said. Concerns are that China could launch an invasion under the guise of petty harassment, and the drills will include fortifying ports and possible Chinese landing points on an island lying 160 kilometers (100 miles) off the Chinese coast.
The drills will later focus on simulated anti-landing exercises, with regular forces from all the services backed up by 22,000 reservists, the ministry said. Exercises will continue around the clock for 10 days under realistic conditions taking into account all possibilities, the ministry said, in a possible attempt to counter criticisms that past exercises have veered on the performative.
The ministry called on the public to show patience with any disruptions to flights or traffic and not to believe false information distributed about the exercises.
China responded to the exercises’ announcement in typically acerbic fashion.
“The Han Guang exercise is nothing but a bluffing and self-deceiving trick by the DPP authorities, attempting to bind the Taiwanese people to the Taiwan independence cart and harm Taiwan for the selfish interests of one party,” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Col. Jiang Bing said at a news conference on Tuesday. The DPP stands for Taiwan’s independence-leading ruling Democratic Progressive Party.
“No matter how they perform or what weapons they use, they cannot resist the PLA’s anti-independence sword and the historical trend of the motherland’s inevitable reunification,” Jiang said.
China appears also to have taken actions to disrupt preparations for the drills, with the Taiwanese Defense Ministry saying PLA planes and ships on Tuesday “conducted harassment operations around Taiwan’s air and sea domains under the pretext of a so-called ‘joint combat readiness patrol.’”
Taiwan’s armed forces “employed joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance measures to closely monitor the situation and dispatched mission aircraft, vessels, and shore-based missile systems to appropriately respond,” the Taiwanese Defense Ministry said Tuesday.
President Donald Trump’s admission last week that Iran had refused to abandon uranium enrichment—even after U.S.–Israeli strikes in June—exposes the harsh reality of Mideast power politics.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington on Monday, ostensibly to discuss Gaza, but, according to a well-informed Israeli journalist, with the next steps on Iran topping his actual agenda. Trump now faces a pivotal choice: statesmanship in pursuit of U.S. interests or subservience to Israel’s radical government.
The recent strikes were meant to cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Instead, they proved the limits of coercion. Satellite imagery shows Iran rebuilding its bombed Fordow facility, and Tehran has suspended cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Far from surrendering, Tehran has struck notes of defiance, and the Iranian people have rallied around the flag, with public opinion now favoring weaponization as the ultimate deterrent against future attacks—a marginal stance before the strikes.
In other words, the hoped-for benefits failed to materialize, though the predictable costs came to pass: a destabilized Middle East and a distracted America, forced to choose between arming Israel or Ukraine amid congressional budget fights.
Yet opportunities for peace with Iran and stability in the Middle East remain. A revived nuclear deal—even an interim accord—could reinstate inspections, cap uranium enrichment, and engineer creative solutions for the reportedly missing 60 percent enriched uranium from Fordow, possibly by transferring it to Russia.
In fact, Trump has consistently seen Moscow as a potential partner in resolving the Iranian standoff, a topic that regularly arises in his calls with Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, backchannel talks through Oman suggest renewed U.S.–Iran diplomacy may be possible, with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly meeting Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oslo. In an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson that aired Monday, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian reaffirmed Tehran’s readiness to resume talks with Washington.
Enter Netanyahu. The Israeli leader’s maximalist demands have complicated diplomacy, and the White House’s adoption of some of those demands as its own has put a nuclear deal beyond reach. Netanyahu desires not just an end to Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program, but the dismantling of its missile arsenal and, ultimately, all conventional defenses, ensuring Israel can dominate and bomb Iran at will, as it does in Lebanon and Syria in pursuit of regional hegemony.
One reason U.S.–Iran diplomacy has faltered is that Trump started pushing for zero enrichment on Iranian soil, a nonstarter for Tehran. The Islamic Republic will also resist any efforts to dismantle its conventional military deterrent.
For a small nation dependent on outside help, these ambitions may sound delusional (The American Conservative’s Andrew Day explored them in detail last week), but they have proven politically advantageous for Netanyahu and his messianic extremist coalition. The Iran war reversed the decline in Netanyahu’s popularity—polls from Israel’s Maariv newspaper show his Likud party regaining its position as the country’s most popular political force, rising to 27 seats in the parliament if the elections were to be celebrated now, compared to 13 according to a pre-war poll.
the same time, the party of his right-wing rival Naftali Bennett dropped from projected 27 seats to 24. Civilian casualties from Iranian retaliatory strikes—29 dead and thousands wounded—have only reinforced the siege mentality among Netanyahu’s allies.
The war has also, for now, eased Netanyahu’s legal troubles, in large part because Trump, citing the prime minister’s leadership during the conflict, called for charges to be dropped. An Israeli court postponed the looming corruption trial testimony at Netanyahu’s request, due to his role as a “wartime prime minister.”
The surest way for Netanyahu to secure Israel’s regional dominance and consolidate his political gains is to resume hostilities with Iran. But Israel—a densely packed country of 9.8 million people with no strategic depth—cannot on its own sustain a prolonged conflict with a nation ten times its population.
Leaked documents reviewed by The Telegraph reveal that the damage from Iran’s retaliatory strikes was worse than officially acknowledged. Israeli military censorship had kept hidden the full extent of Iran’s tactical successes, but the data shows five military bases hit in 12 days, with missile defenses strained to their limits. Unlike Iran’s vast geography, Israel’s concentrated population and infrastructure—including the Dimona nuclear facility—make it uniquely vulnerable to escalation.
This is why Netanyahu needs to entangle Trump in his war: Israel cannot fight Iran without the support of its superpower patron.
Trump must avoid this trap. Crucially, he has already shown reluctance to fully indulge Netanyahu’s escalatory plans. During Israel’s 12-day war with Iran, the administration authorized limited strikes on Fordow—reportedly with prior warning to Tehran—demonstrating resolve while deliberately avoiding the full-scale U.S. war that Netanyahu sought. This calibrated approach blocked Israel’s push for deep U.S. military involvement and avoided triggering a regional conflagration.
Trump has strong political incentives to hold firm in this pragmatism. According to a YouGov/Economist poll, 60 percent of Americans think the U.S. military should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran, with only 16 percent supporting military action.
Most MAGA voters went along with Trump’s strikes, but many could turn on the president if the U.S. wages a prolonged war with Iran. Tucker Carlson’s viral segments (such as his latest with the Libertarian Institute’s Scott Horton) and warnings from allies like Steve Bannon and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene show that prominent MAGA influencers won’t compromise on their rejection of Middle East quagmires. With 52 percent of Americans now disapproving of Trump’s foreign policy and no clear path to ending the war in Ukraine, starting another conflict could fracture his coalition.
Another key reason to deescalate relates to America’s improving relations with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, ties that grew only stronger during Trump’s landmark visit to the region in May. Preserving those relationships requires avoiding open-ended wars that destabilize the region. The Gulf states’ cautious neutrality during recent conflicts underscores the value of this approach.
Chasing Netanyahu’s fantasies would also divert resources from the defining challenge: countering China, America’s only peer competitor. A diplomatic deal with Iran would free up political and military capital for the strategic “pivot to Asia” that Washington has failed to execute since the Barack Obama administration.
Moving forward, Trump should reject Netanyahu’s push for deeper U.S. involvement in Israel’s war on Iran. Instead, he should intensify backchannel diplomacy through Oman and other mediators, including possibly Russia.
The contrast between the interests of the two leaders is stark: Netanyahu needs war to survive politically, while Trump needs peace to fulfill his “America First” campaign promises. The latter’s pragmatism has prevented worse escalation before, and it motivated him to keep U.S. strikes on Iran restricted to a specific mission, however ill-conceived. Now is the time to cement that restraint.
The door to true statesmanship remains open, or at least unlocked—but only if Trump resists the Israeli push toward escalation. For a president who vowed to end “stupid wars,” the choice should be clear.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday backed President Donald Trump’s effort to carry out mass firings and reorganizations at federal agencies, putting on hold a lower court order that had temporarily blocked the president from taking those steps without approval from Congress.
The decision is the latest in a series of significant wins for Trump at the Supreme Court, including an opinion making it more difficult to challenge executive orders and rulings backing the administration’s deportation policies.
In an unsigned order, the high court said that lower courts had stopped the plans based on the administration’s general effort, rather than specific agency “reduction in force” plans that would drastically cut the size of the government workforce.
No vote count was released, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, dissented.
The case stems from an executive order Trump signed in mid-February that kicked off the process of significantly reducing the size of federal agencies, an issue the president campaigned on last year. Departments subsequently announced plans to lay off tens of thousands of employees.
But federal departments are created by law and lower courts have repeatedly held that the White House can’t unilaterally wipe them out or leave them so short staffed that they cannot carry out their legal responsibilities.
“Because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and memorandum are lawful … we grant the application,” the court wrote in its brief order. “We express no view on the legality of any agency RIF and reorganization plan produced or approved pursuant to the executive order and memorandum.”
In other words, the court left open the possibility that it could rule against a specific plan in the future if the reductions appeared to make it impossible for an agency to carry out its obligation under the law.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of more than a dozen unions, non-profits and local governments, who have billed it as the largest legal challenge to the Trump administration’s effort to downsize the federal workforce.
“Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy,” the coalition said in a statement. “This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.”
The coalition said it will continue to “argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”
Jackson: Ruling is ‘hubristic and senseless’
“In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless,” Jackson wrote in her dissent. “Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts – including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities.”
At bottom, Jackson wrote, the case was about whether the administration’s effort “amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives – and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened.”
“Yet, for some reason,” she added, “this court sees fit to step in now and release the president’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”
The order covers major reductions at more than a dozen agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Treasury, State, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Some of the proposed cuts include a reduction of some 10,000 positions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, according to court records. The Treasury Department proposed reducing the number of Internal Revenue Service positions by 40%. The Department of Veterans Affairs planned to eliminate 80,000 jobs, according to the groups that sued, though on Mondaythe VA reduced that figure to 30,000, which it said will be accomplished mainly through a hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements and normal attrition.
The heads of some agencies have said that they were holding off on their reorganizations and reductions because of the district court order. CNN has reached out to several departments about their plans to proceed.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the court’s liberal wing, said she agreed with the decision, which she described as limited.
“I agree with Justice Jackson that the president cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” Sotomayor wrote. “Here, however, the relevant executive order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law.’”
A federal court in California previously blocked the administration from conducting deeper layoffs and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to intervene. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court in early June.
“Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them,” US District Judge Susan Illston, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in in May.
But, she wrote, “a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.”
Writing for the majority in the appeals court decision, US Circuit Judge William Fletcher, another Clinton appointee, said that “the kind of reorganization contemplated by the order has long been subject to Congressional approval.”
None of us ever would have heard of Jeffrey Epstein had the government not brought him up.
It was the government that brought charges against him. The government told us that he was “the most prolific child sex trafficker in history.” The government said he was “with intelligence.” The government cut him a sweetheart deal. The government was taken to court by “John Doe” over what the government called “client lists.” The government courts made a ruling about the “client lists” not being released. Senator Dick Durbin blocked the release of the “client list” in the legislative branch of the government.
The government said it had “client lists” on its desk. The government was the entity that created the term “client list” as it relates to Epstein.
And as much as I would love to blame some of this on the media, their source on all things Epstein…was the government.
Now, I’m going to pause and ask readers: Has someone ever cheated on you? If the answer is “yes” (first, I’m sorry that happened to you), then doesn’t the government’s behavior vis-à-vis Epstein remind you of that episode in your own life?
Weird lies and “disclosures” for seemingly no reason, contradictory statements, and the inability to produce a coherent explanation for anything.
The few times that a person in my life was acting like the government now is, I found out later that the person was cheating.
The government is lying about Jeffrey Epstein. Either they were lying then, or they’re lying now, maybe both. They don’t get to claim that there are no client lists after issuing statements going back over a decade saying there were “client lists.”
Were they lying then when they described Epstein as a “large trafficking ring”? Or are they lying now when claiming that the “ring” consisted of exactly two people and Prince Andrew?
The government doesn’t get to split themselves out of this. The Palm Beach Police Department, the CIA, and the DoJ all fly the same flag in front of HQ—they’re all “the government” on this one, one entity, working together, just as happened during COVID.
Was the government lying then when they said they had thousands of hours of videos showing the most disgusting things imaginable? Or are they lying now when they maintain that the only thing that happened was 17-year-old girls giving Jeffrey a back massage with a happy ending (while gross, a far cry from “most disgusting things imaginable”)?
Speaking of video, the government claimed that the cameras outside of Epstein’s cell were malfunctioning (while the guards were napping), but now it posts 10 hours of video from the malfunctioning devices?
How did Epstein make his money? Why doesn’t the government know? Did he build a billion-dollar empire $9,999.99 at a time, and avoid reporting anything to the IRS ever?
Government officials start sounding like gender nonbinary people the second Epstein’s name comes up. They always talk about what he wasn’t and never about what he was. (“A nonbinary person is someone who doesn’t adapt to gender norms.” Well, duh, we asked for a definition of what nonbinary is, not what it isn’t.)
The government is and has been lying about Epstein… the question is why?
And one more thing. I purposely avoided all Epstein conspiracy videos on the internet this entire time. I’ve not gotten one sentence about Epstein from Alex Jones. Every conspiratorial view I’ve gotten about Epstein came from the mainstream media (so from a governmental press release, as the MSM do no investigating of their own). Why is the government now calling statements the government made internet “conspiracy theories”?
I’ve got theories about what they are really up to with Epstein…and so do you. Go with that, it’s more truth than we’ll be getting from the government on this issue.
With the passage of Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” the GOP won a generational victory. It did so by co-opting key Democratic messages and building a MAGA-based story of America and what ails it.
Democrats are getting used to that. Most of them consider Trump as a sui generis political figure who voters don’t associate with the GOP’s least popular ideas.
Ironically, Trump built that reputation in 2020, before he lost the presidency. He had scrapped the GOP’s old commitment to reforming Social Security and Medicaid in his 2016 campaign, denying Democrats one of their best issues. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he implemented bipartisan relief bills that expanded health care coverage and gave direct cash payments to most Americans.
In 2024, when he pledged to cut more taxes and protect welfare programs — trimming only “waste, fraud, and abuse” — swing voters remembered 2020 and found it credible. His policies added $7.8 trillion to the national debt, but Democrats voted for some of them, and Republicans never really blamed him for that number. Nikki Haley criticized Trump for growing the debt, and he beat her in South Carolina by 20 points.
Democrats built their anti-megabill campaign on what had worked in 2017, when they got enough Republican votes to save the Affordable Care Act. The GOP was more aligned with Trump than it had been then, which they knew going in. But it also had a more coherent story to tell, which Democrats unwittingly helped with.
The MAGA story in 2025 was that America needed to be saved from internal drift and external threats, which this legislation would do. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s entrance into the MAGA coalition was an important part of the story. Neither party denied that Americans needed to be healthier, but Kennedy and his allies — now in the administration — described the government’s health apparatus as an impediment, a waste of money that had been captured by the pharmaceutical industry.
“We are spending $900 billion, and our people are getting sicker every single year,” Kennedy, now health secretary, said during his confirmation hearing. That statistic is one that the left and Democrats have used to argue that the for-profit health care system is less efficient than a single-payer system. But Kennedy used it to explain how most Americans need to make personal choices to be healthier, and that Medicaid needs to focus on the truly needy.
By the time he endorsed Trump, Kennedy had also embraced his future boss’ position on immigration: Democrats had let the US-Mexico border get “out of control,” and Republicans needed to seal it.
This was harder for Democrats to campaign around. New ICE funding for agents and camps, new funding for a border wall — all of this was part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act pitch, and Democrats did denounce it. But at the same time, they were divided on whether talking about immigration, one of Trump’s stronger issues, was a diversion from Medicaid and tax cuts for the wealthy, two of his weaker issues.
Republicans made a zero-sum argument that expelling migrants and denying them benefits would help American citizens; Democrats invited reporters with them as they demanded access to ICE facilities. They tried to make a connection, arguing that Trump was distracting from his unpopular tax cut push by targeting immigrants.
But Republicans were happy to talk about all of it. Yes, they would cut taxes for Americans and cut Medicaid for people who didn’t earn it or need it; yes, doing that would be easier if they expelled millions of migrants, they argued.
Now, Republicans who said they couldn’t vote for the bill have done so. One Democratic project for the next 17 months will be blaming any cutbacks to services on Trump and the GOP.
Democrats remember how badly it hurt their party when Barack Obama said that anyone who liked their pre-ACA insurance plan “could keep it,” because millions of people couldn’t keep theirs. They now have plenty of video and audio of Republicans exuding the same confidence about their health care policies — that the only people who might lose out will be migrants who shouldn’t be here, or lazy thirty-somethings who should get employer insurance instead.
And they’re a little more cynical now. At this point four years ago, Democrats believed that Joe Biden’s 2021 stimulus plan would deliver benefits that Americans would thank them for. Two years ago, they hoped that Biden’s record of infrastructure funding, student debt relief, prescription drug reform, and union pension bailouts would convince voters to reelect him.
That optimism won them nothing. Inflation overwhelmed any good feelings for Biden’s policies, and they faced Trump, whose approach to welfare programs was the kind of populism Franklin Roosevelt once made fun of: “We will do all of them; we will do more of them; we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.”
Eighty-nine years later, it sounds less like a joke — and very hard to run against.
The View From Republicans
As they convinced the last holdouts to support the legislation, Republicans celebrated the achievement of long-held conservative policy goals — some of them lost in frenzied coverage of the negotiations.
“We have a defunding of taxpayer-funded abortion in this bill,” said Ralph Reed, the founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, at a lunch with reporters before the bill passed. “We want to increase the child tax credit. We have this extraordinary provision that creates a tax credit for the entire nation for contributions for K-12 school choice programs.”
The new Medicaid work restrictions were better-known, and more popular, though they have led people to lose coverage whenever they’ve been tried. To validate Trump’s promise that he would not cut Medicaid, Republicans said that reducing the rolls would improve the program overall, an argument that Paul Ryan once made about his conservative Medicare and Medicaid reforms.
“Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz told Fox News last month. That was a reversal for Oz, who once supported Democrats’ goal of universal health insurance.
The View From Democrats
The bill undid more of the party’s work than some Democrats had expected. Republicans who looked moveable on the bill’s Medicaid cuts, saying on the record that they would oppose them, adopted the Trump line that the cuts were not cuts and would make the program stronger. Funding and investments that the party had directed to red states, hoping to make them politically robust, turned out to be expendable.
“The clean energy incentives may be pared back but because they have produced investment that overwhelmingly benefits Republican congressional districts, much of it is probably safe,” wrote Bharat Ramamurti, former deputy director of Biden’s National Economic Council, one week before Trump took office. Ramamurti told Semafor that he had been too optimistic: “I underestimated how much GOP members would be willing to throw their own constituents and business community under the bus, if that’s what Dear Leader demands.”
In 2024, Democrats failed to convince voters that keeping them in the White House would benefit them economically. In 2026, they intend to run as populists who’d tax the rich and restore the welfare state.
“Republicans have talked a big game about becoming the party of working people,” said Texas Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “This vote should be the final nail in the coffin of that idea.”
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 