The Left Isn’t Just Marching Through Our Institutions, It’s Imploding Them

When the long march through the institutions gives destructive and ridiculous people control of the institutions, the institutions become destructive and ridiculous, and then they become destroyed and ridiculous.

The law professor Glenn Reynolds has talked for years about the premise, in public policy, that people can be brought into the middle class if you give them the markers of middle-class status. Having a college degree is middle class, so make it easier to get a college degree. Owning a house is middle class, so lower the barriers to homeownership. 1.) Make it all much easier. 2.) Give people way more free stuff. 3.) Larger middle class!

“But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class,” he writes. “Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.”

Mistaking the markers for the substance, for the things that cause the creation of the desired thing, gives us this: [X post at link]

The idea behind the “long march through the institutions” is that the capture of the symbols of cultural authority is the same thing as the capture of cultural authority. The markers are the substance. See, people listen to their ministers and their professors, so if we get jobs as ministers and professors, people will listen to us. The job title is the authority. “As your minister, I advise you to embrace socialism and get a lot of abortions, and I direct you to notice that I am wearing a clerical collar, so.”

This language is ubiquitous in 21st-century America. It’s status markers all the way down. Experts say. Officials say. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is dismantling the CDC, and that’s very dangerous, because our health authorities are the experts. A lot of very important professors are telling you to do [insert thing here]. You can’t advise your child against gender transition — you don’t even have the right credentials.

Antonio Gramsci, and the New Left activists who followed him, looked at institutions like churches and universities and concluded that they had authority because they were churches and universities. They looked like authority, they performed the symbols of authority, they made authority noises, and so people followed.

Chris Bray, The Federalist

A Bright New Energy Dawn In The UK

It Vladimir was just a couple of weeks ago — October 3 to be precise — that I reported that the long-running “net zero” political consensus in the UK was finally “crumbling.” In the intervening two-plus weeks, the slow crumbling has turned into a rapid collapse.

The biggest roadblock for opponents of a green energy transition in the UK has been that the Conservative Party, which should have been the natural home of opposition to net zero, has instead long (and foolishly) allied itself with the net zero cause. In June 2019, the Conservatives (under Prime Minister Theresa May) put through an ambitious amendment to enhance the net zero targets of the 2008 Climate Act, and then proceeded to a general election that December where they won a substantial majority of 365 seats (in a parliament of 650). In subsequent years, a parliamentary faction in the House of Commons called the Net Zero Scrutiny Group struggled to get to about 50 or so Conservative members, who were far outnumbered by the opposing faction of the same party called the Conservative Environment Network. The UK voters had surely demonstrated their climate virtue.

But unfortunately things did not work out quite as they had anticipated. Energy bills accelerated until, as reported in the Telegraph on September 30 and then here on October 3, UK electricity bills have become the highest in the world. De-industrialization has set in and worsened. Britain’s last primary blast furnace steel works at Port Talbot closed in September 2024. A final rolling mill at Scunthorpe, now under Chinese ownership, threatened to close earlier this year until the government intervened. Similar reports of factory closures come regularly from all energy-intensive industries.

On October 6, immediately after my prior post, the Conservatives held a party conference in Manchester. One of the speakers was Claire Coutinho, the Shadow Energy Secretary. Her speech was an incredible breath of fresh air, and marked a dramatic u-turn from prior Conservative energy policy. The title was “Energy Is Prosperity.” Some excerpts:

In the last few decades, we’ve lost sight of a simple truth. Energy is a good thing. Conservatives know that great eras of British growth and prosperity happen when we have an abundance of cheap, reliable energy. . . . [E]nergy is not just part of the economy. It is the economy. It feeds into the costs of every business, every journey, every loaf of bread. . . . That’s why right now, the cost of energy is one of the biggest problems we have. It’s a stealth tax that is making us all poorer. And it’s killing our industry.

The Conservatives have finally figured out that the net zero agenda is a program to make the people poorer in sacrifice to the climate religion. More from Coutinho’s speech:

[H]ere’s the problem with the Left – they’re infected with a poverty mindset. They believe that Britain has a duty to make itself poorer on the altar of Net Zero. And they think that ordinary people should be the servants of their climate targets. So, take air conditioning. In America, nearly every single home has air con. Here in Britain? Just 5%. But Sadiq Khan’s London Plan effectively bans air con in all new homes – why? Because it uses too much energy. Rather than people fitting into the Government’s policy on energy, I believe a Conservative energy policy should serve the needs of the people.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I suspect that opposition to a program of intentional impoverishment of the people ought to be an electoral winner. The Labour Party and its Energy Minister, Ed Miliband, continue even now to claim that building more wind turbines will make electricity cheaper. But that claim is based on pretending that huge costs of intermittency, backup, storage, and transmission don’t exist. It has taken a long time for the reality of those costs to become clear, but the truth is now out.

The change in direction from the Conservative Party has come none too soon. On October 10, Bretibart News reported that the UK’s grid manager, National Energy Systems Operator, was forecasting reduced safety margins for electricity generation this winter, at the same time as the Labour government proceeds with dynamiting coal plants that could still be used for backup. The headline is “‘Tight Days’ For Electricity This Winter Says Network Operator as UK Presses on With Dynamiting Potential Backup Power Stations.” Excerpt:

Most notable was the revelation that the gas supply margin this winter is the lowest in years and down by 34 per cent over last year, a change [National Gas] attributes to the dwindling supply of gas being extracted from the North Sea. . . . 1960s-vintage power plants were brought online on command to cover tight margins several times in recent winters. Yet they have now all powered down for good, cut off from the national grid and are being demolished. Indeed, just days before today’s announcement of potential “tight days”, fresh footage of some of the final coal-powered power stations in the UK being dramatically dynamited was published.

I’m not going to predict that Britain will definitely experience major blackouts this winter. But the risk is far higher than it was just a few years ago, and that risk will continue to increase in coming years, until Britain can get itself to build more dispatchable generation, which in anything less than 15 years means natural gas or coal.

And it is not just the Shadow Energy Minister who has caught on. In today’s New York Post there is an op-ed by Kemi Badenoch, the new Conservative Party leader and prospective PM should the Conservatives win the next election. (It is not obvious that they will do so, since the next election could be years away, and another party called Reform UK — also net zero opponents — leads both Labour and the Conservatives in the polls.). Ms. Badenoch’s op-ed covers multiple topics, including immigration and the Middle East as well as energy. Here are some things she has to say on the topic of energy:

[A] place I agree with this White House is on energy. Cheap energy is the foundation of a growing economy. No serious politician can talk about putting money in people’s pockets if they’re also doing things that make energy bills more expensive. . . . [I]n Britain, Labour ministers are so obsessed with chasing net-zero targets that they’re making life harder for ordinary families. . . . We’re sitting on North Sea oil and gas, yet the government refuses to grant new licenses. We’re now in the crazy position of importing gas from our near-neighbors Norway, who are getting stuck into those same oil fields in the North Sea.

The Conservatives came close to destroying the party by joining the Left’s net zero crusade. The current u-turn may or may not be enough to save the party. However, adding the Conservatives’ position in the polls to that of Reform UK would indicate that opposition to net zero is now close to if not an absolute majority electoral position. That represents an enormous swing in a few short years.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

Western Civilization Depends on Men and Masculinity

For centuries, men built and defended Western civilization — from its farms and cities to its laws, its art, and its moral order. But in just a few generations, that foundation has been shaken. Masculinity, once honored as the engine of strength, protection, and leadership, is now treated as a social problem. The very qualities that sustained families, communities, and nations are being redefined as “toxic.” Today, masculinity itself is treated as something to be “reformed” or “re-educated.”

What happened? How did the very qualities that built the modern world become objects of suspicion and ridicule?

The truth is simpler: Western civilization depends on men and masculinity — and it cannot survive without them.

The Quiet War on Manhood

Since the mid-20th century, Western culture has undergone an ideological shift that redefined traditional masculinity as something outdated, even dangerous. The cultural shifts of the 1960s promised liberation but gradually replaced personal responsibility and family order with self-gratification and state dependence. Where strong families once formed the backbone of the West, an alliance of ideological radicalism and excessive consumerism has turned both men and women into disconnected individuals — easier to manipulate, easier to control.

This erosion of masculine identity didn’t happen by accident. It was shaped through decades of social conditioning that cast male authority as oppressive, fatherhood as optional, and discipline as cruelty. In recent years, even government agencies have launched programs to ‘redefine’ masculinity, echoing language once confined to activist circles. The result is a culture where men are encouraged to suppress their natural instincts — their drive to lead, protect, and provide — in favor of emotional conformity. The modern man is expected to apologize for being male.

That truth — the structural bias against authentic masculinity — became the foundation for my book, The War on Men: How the New Gender Politics Is Undermining Western Civilization. Written not in resentment, but in plain clarity, it exposes how systems once meant to protect families and society have been twisted by new gender politics.

The Vanishing Father

The collapse of fatherhood lies at the heart of this crisis. A century ago, the father served as the moral and practical anchor of the household. Today, millions of boys grow up without one. The results are measurable: higher rates of crime, depression, and academic failure.

Without fathers, young men struggle to define what strength, honor, and leadership even mean. The vacuum is filled by media caricatures — the bumbling sitcom dad, the toxic aggressor, or the passive nice guy who never offends anyone.

It’s no coincidence that as male leadership has declined, so has family stability. When men are removed from their natural roles, the entire social structure weakens. Feminist academics and bureaucrats claimed this would “liberate” women. Instead, it left both sexes adrift — men deprived of a clear sense of purpose, and women burdened with expectations that conflict with their natural strengths.

From Strength to Shame

Modern education and media condition young men to doubt traits that were once honored — assertiveness, risk-taking, competitiveness, and stoicism. The ideal of the strong, self-reliant man has been replaced with the sensitive conformist who fears giving offense more than failing his responsibilities.

null

This inversion of values has consequences far beyond gender. A society that discourages strength and rewards compliance eventually loses its ability to defend itself — morally, culturally, and even militarily.

Civilizations rise when men are encouraged to lead; they fall when men are shamed for doing so.

The Spartan Mindset

What does authentic masculinity look like today? It’s not about wealth, dominance, or bravado. True manhood begins with integrity — the courage to face reality, take responsibility, and act according to principle, even when it’s unpopular.

The ancient Spartans understood this. They didn’t chase comfort or approval; they pursued mastery over themselves. That’s the essence of the “Spartan mindset”: realism over optimism, truth over illusion. Modern culture tells men to “stay positive,” to avoid confrontation, and to seek validation. But strength is not built in comfort. A man becomes strong by facing hardship honestly — by learning discipline, self-control, and purpose in the face of adversity. When it comes down to optimism or pessimism, I always choose realism.

A Feminized Culture

Western civilization has become, in many ways, a feminized culture. Emotional comfort is prioritized over truth; feelings take precedence over facts. Public debate is now policed by fear of offense. The phrase “my rights don’t end where your feelings begin” has never been more relevant.
Even federally, in January 2025 the U.S. government declared it a matter of state policy that there are only two sexes and that gender ideology must be rejected — a formal backlash to decades of shifting norms around masculinity and gender.

This preference for sentiment over reason has spread through politics, media, and education. Policies are increasingly designed not for long-term stability but to appease emotion-driven constituencies and align with UN-style governance models that echo centralized planning. The result is widespread moral uncertainty and civic stagnation.

The Masculine Virtues We Lost

Courage, restraint, loyalty, and honor — these virtues once defined manhood. Today, they’re rarely taught in a school system dominated by new gender politics, let alone celebrated. Yet these are precisely the qualities that sustain a civilization. Masculinity, properly understood, is grounded not in domination but in responsibility — the duty to protect, provide, and uphold truth even when it’s costly. The decline of those virtues has produced generations of anxious, uncertain men — products of a system that rewards compliance over conviction.

In schools, boys are medicated for restlessness; in DEI workplaces, masculine ambition is branded as aggression; in media, masculinity is reduced to parody. It’s no wonder so many young men feel lost.

A culture that derides masculine virtue produces dependents, not leaders.

Reclaiming Balance

The solution isn’t a return to harshness or domination, as critics of ‘patriarchy’ often claim. What’s needed is balance — a renewed respect for the masculine and feminine as complementary forces, not rivals. Men and women are different by design, and that difference is the foundation of family and community life. Denying that truth has made both sexes less happy, less stable, and less fulfilled.

The West needs men who are strong without tyranny, disciplined without indifference, and honest without apology. The current generation of men have been denied what their ancestors took for granted — that freedom and civilization depend on masculinity, courage, responsibility, and the willingness to lead.

The Way Forward

It seems clear that the revival of authentic masculinity won’t come from a political culture dominated by new gender politics — so where should men look instead? The revival of masculinity begins in personal conduct. Every man can reclaim strength by mastering himself — by rejecting the passivity and self-pity our culture encourages. Masculinity isn’t harmful; it’s essential. The real harm lies in the ideology that teaches men to distrust their natural instincts.

When men rediscover purpose and principle, families heal, communities strengthen, and nations endure. The West was built by men unafraid to lead, to protect, and to speak the truth — and it will endure only if such men rise again. If Western civilization is to survive, it must once more honor, strengthen, and respect its men.

Mark Keenan is the author of The War on Men: How the New Gender Politics Is Undermining Western Civilization (recently updated) and Climate CO2 Hoax. A former UN technical expert, he writes on culture, law, science, and the ideological forces reshaping the modern West.

New Image

5

sharethis sharing button
American Thinker on MeWe

 Print

 Email

2025 Could Be the Best Year to Try This StrategyThe Penny Hoarder

People Born 1921-1979 Are Due a Large Surprise, Check if You QualifyThe Consumer Guide

Sponsored

View & Add Comments (5)

Around the Web

The Neck and Shoulder Heating Pad is Taking Ashburn by StormVianys

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower UpgradeHomeBuddy

Edema is Not From Salty Food. Meet The Real Enemy of Swollen LegsRejuvaCare

People Born 1921-1979 Are Due a Large Surprise, Check if You QualifyThe Consumer Guide

Here’s What It Would Cost to Install a Stair Lift in Your HouseHomeBuddy

How Electric Nail Clippers Make Care Safer and EasierVianys

If You Drink Almond Milk Daily, This is What HappensWell Being For All

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Gutter Guards InstallationLeafFilter Partner

Md: Nerve Pain (Neuropathy) After 50 Comes Down to 1 ThingNeuropathyGuide

Here’s The Average Price Of a Water Treatment System In 2025HomeBuddy

How Much Does a New Roof Cost for a 1500 Sq. Ft. House?HomeBuddy

5 Companies That Send People Money When They’re Asked NicelyThe Penny Hoarder

Revcontent

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker on MeWe
American Thinker on GETTR
American Thinker on Truth Social

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

Trending Topics

Trending

How Much Does a New Roof Cost for a 1500 Sq. Ft. House?HomeBuddy

Here’s What It Would Cost to Install a Stair Lift in Your HouseHomeBuddy

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower UpgradeHomeBuddy

If You Drink Almond Milk Daily, This is What HappensWell Being For All

Revcontent

Most Read

24hr

48hr

7 Days

States Where it’s Almost Impossible to Prove Voter Fraud

Charles Sullivan

Misunderstanding Mamdani

Gene Schwimmer

Canada: A Socialist Paradise Lost

Leo Standing

Why it’s so hard for a leftist to change

Robert Arvay

The Israeli intel crown jewel Hamas never knew it had

James Zumwalt

Top Contributors


Last 7 Days

Silvio Canto, Jr.

Eric Utter

Joseph Ford Cotto

Amil Imani

Thomas Kolbe

Last 30 Days

Silvio Canto, Jr.

Eric Utter

J.B. Shurk

Clarice Feldman

Kevin Finn

Joseph Ford Cotto

Thomas Kolbe

Douglas Schwartz

Susan Quinn

Jack Hellner

The Left Establishment will never forgive J.D. Vance forsaking it

Ben Domenech has a very interesting take on Vice President Vance in an essay on The Transom.

[T]he truth is: They hate him because they view him as a traitor to their class, after they welcomed him with open arms.

He recounts the rapturous response Hillbilly Elegy received upon publication and the instant celebrity conferred upon Vance, in so small part because it satisfied a need of “people on the center left trying to make some sense of (or offer some dismissive explanation for) the Trump phenomenon.”

Vance went all-in (something he has done as Trump’s number two as well):

He went on Charlie Rose to call himself as a “a Never Trump guy,” wrote a piece for the The New York Times calling Trump “unfit” for the presidency, and joined Terry Gross on NPR to call Trump “noxious” and warn that he “is leading the white working class to a very dark place.” He even did the most humiliating thing you could do at that time in that position, which was cast a vote in 2016 for Evan McMullin. He’d proven which side he was on.

Domenech understands the potent social and economic lucre such a debut implies:

For someone without a sense of principle or political reality, all this would go to your head. You have the opportunity to be at the top echelon of elite voices, rake in the money on the speaking tours, and be a voice of constant Christian moralizing against the racist bigots from whence you came who just don’t know what’s good for them. Who would turn it down?

But as we all can see, Vance didn’t go for the immediate reward at hand. He saw Trump’s first term unfold and changed his mind about what works. Not just in public, but as someone drawn to politics.

The left hates this. They think insults matter more than policy, and that if you couldn’t stomach Trump’s tweets, it definitely makes you a hypocrite to say he’s doing good things, too. And deep down, they know Vance is really quite good at it. The vice president has an even better understanding of the elite world he had briefly navigated. Seeing its weak points fueled an even greater talent at making the case for the Trumpian policies he now supports. Today you’ll oftentimes find him arguing the case with those same media entities and figures who once welcomed him into the fold. His talent makes the shift all the more frustrating. So does his beard.

I have a longstanding belief that former lefties make for effective conservatives. They know the enemy, and they know why it is wrong. The late David Horowitz stands as a powerful example of someone who understood the evil the left does and effectively worked against it. The son of party member capital C Communists, he turned against the left when he experienced the ruthlessness of the Black Panthers, who murdered his friend because she knew too much. He got it: the Left is a racket.

I’ve known many other reformed leftist conservatives because I am one and we can usually spot each other.

I take it as a powerful sign that Vance went to Yale Law School, where he heard plenty of progressive political rhetoric, and when he got out into the real world, he saw that the theories didn’t work too well in practice. And he had the courage to admit he was wrong and and change his way of thinking, not to mention professional and social circles, and seek to help frustrate the aims of the world of the progressive intellectual, that he briefly inhabited.

Domenech concludes:

So when the left rails against Vance, understand that they do so from a position of deeply felt personal betrayal.

And the Left is now virtually feminized, as Helen Andrews reminds us, with consequent amplification of the impact of emotional betrayal.

Thomas Lifson

Communism isn’t Cool

Woke little Communists who don’t believe in private property or profits protested to express their loathing of a system based on private property and profits.

This is what happens when you teach children that gender confusion is virtuous and logic or rationality represent toxic whiteness and masculinity.

Communism is your future, young snowflake leftists–and just remember: you wanted it.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, reversing a decision by a district judge earlier this month.

It was the second time the Ninth Circuit — despite its reputation as a liberal bastion — overruled lower courts and allowed Trump to exercise his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief; the first case was California.

National Public Radio reported:

A divided federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit today overturned a temporary restraining order put in place by a federal judge in Portland – removing the legal impediment that was preventing the Trump Administration from sending National Guard troops to Portland.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’” the majority wrote in their decision.

On Oct. 16, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier district court ruling in Illinois, temporarily blocking the president’s federalization and deployment of the National Guard deployment there. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Much had been made, earlier, of the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee, to block the deployment. Liberal commentators relished in her grandiose declaration: “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” The Ninth Circuit has since decided: it is, indeed, a nation of constitutional law, but not of rule by judges against law and order, or over the Constitution itself.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to deploy the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, reversing a decision by a district judge earlier this month.

It was the second time the Ninth Circuit — despite its reputation as a liberal bastion — overruled lower courts and allowed Trump to exercise his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief; the first case was California.

National Public Radio reported:

A divided federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit today overturned a temporary restraining order put in place by a federal judge in Portland – removing the legal impediment that was preventing the Trump Administration from sending National Guard troops to Portland.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’” the majority wrote in their decision.

On Oct. 16, a federal appeals court upheld an earlier district court ruling in Illinois, temporarily blocking the president’s federalization and deployment of the National Guard deployment there. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Much had been made, earlier, of the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a first-term Trump appointee, to block the deployment. Liberal commentators relished in her grandiose declaration: “This is a nation of constitutional law, not martial law.” The Ninth Circuit has since decided: it is, indeed, a nation of constitutional law, but not of rule by judges against law and order, or over the Constitution itself.

Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart

Justice Jackson Says “Blacks Are Disabled” [semi-satire]

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson cited the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to support her contention that “gerrymandering congressional districts to ensure that there are more majority Black districts is constitutional. Mental ability statistics show that, as a race, Blacks have a lower IQ than any other race. The only way they can be fairly represented in Congress is if they can have districts where their mental disability is out-weighed by greater numbers of Black voters.”

Chief Justice John Roberts said “I have long held that the only way to end racial discrimination is to stop using race as a factor in determining a person’s rights in our society. The notion that every race should be equally represented in every school, profession, or activity is preposterous. Aptitudes and abilities are not equally distributed among humans. Using racial quotas to decide university admissions, job placements, or congressional districts violates the principle of treating each person equally. All must be free to choose their own course without anyone putting their thumb on the scale.”

Jackson countered saying “we already put a ‘thumb on the scale’ when our laws decree preferred parking spots and access ramps for the physically disabled. Why shouldn’t we put our thumb on the scale for the mentally disabled so there voices can be heard in Congress?”

Justice Clarence Thomas argued against racism, saying “I think my own life story makes the case that race may not be as decisive a determiner of our fate as Justice Jackson contends. It is one thing to ensure that opportunities are open to all comers to make the best of themselves. Would-be benefactors may choose to lend a hand, but the process should not be rigged to ensure that the incapable are saddled with responsibilities they cannot handle. Their inevitable failure does not well serve society or the misplaced person.”

John Semmens

Obamacare’s latest scandal is a $35 billion ghost story

The Democrats have named their price to end the government shutdown — an additional $350 billion for health care over the next decade. Critics say a big chunk of that money may go to ghosts.

At issue are the generous subsidies the Biden administration created for Affordable Care Act policies, sweeteners that are slated to expire in December. Making health care essentially free for millions of Americans, those policies have sent enrollment in Obamacare plans skyrocketing. But a recent study found they have also sparked a curious phenomenon: an estimated 12 million enrollees “without a single claim — no doctor visit, lab test, or prescription filled” in 2024.

The Paragon Health Institute study reports that this is triple the number of no-claim policyholders before the Biden sweeteners were put in place.

“Among those now eligible for zero-premium plans with low or no deductible,” the study found, “that number increased nearly sevenfold. … A whopping 40% of enrollees in fully subsidized plans had no claims in 2024. In 2024 alone, taxpayers sent at least $35 billion to insurers for people who paid no premiums and never used their plan,” the report said.

Although many analysts suspect that these numbers suggest widespread fraud, Democrats and the insurance industry argue that they reflect consumers taking advantage of affordable coverage. They warn that the expiration of Biden-era reforms will make policies far more expensive for more than 20 million Americans.

“If Congress fails to extend the health care tax credits, millions of Americans will face immediate and severe premium increases, leading many to forgo coverage altogether,” said Chris Bond, a spokesman for AHIP, the lobbying arm of the health insurance industry. “Congress must act as quickly as possible to protect Americans from this affordability crisis.”

As Democrats have made health care their line in the sand on the government shutdown, Biden-era expansions of Obamacare are receiving new attention as a symbol of both expanding access to health care and of spending run amok.

Critics say they underscore the findings of the Department of Government Efficiency, which has highlighted a lack of accountability in massive government spending programs at a time when the federal government is struggling to corral massive deficits and debt. They say the Biden sweeteners also illustrate how and why government spending keeps increasing: Once a subsidy is put in place, it is hard to take it away from voters.

Swollen rolls

The Obamacare expansion at issue came about through legislation and regulations during Biden’s term and was often cast as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. First, the scope of who was eligible for subsidies was broadened to households with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty line — making a family of four earning up to $160,000 eligible for subsidized plans. Also, increased subsidies made Obamacare free for those with incomes between 100% and 150% of the poverty line, and longer enrollment periods were introduced.

The cost for this, on the other hand, is borne by taxpayers.

“Biden’s COVID credits didn’t reduce health care costs — they just shifted them to taxpayers while padding insurer and enrollment intermediary profits,” Paragon President Brian Blase said.

Like all gigantic markets and massive government programs, the Affordable Care Act and what people pay each month have become a very complicated thing, varying by age, state, plan level, and other factors. But the figures for the Obamacare “reference plan” (silver level) reveal what has happened since the COVID pandemic.

In 2021, when Biden was inaugurated, the basic plan cost an individual $27 a month if reported income was at or below the federal poverty line, which stood at around $14,500 a year. For those making 50% more, the “reference plan” cost $75 a month, and so on up to $152 a month for someone making more than $30,000. Those monthly payment figures were constant regardless of what the insurers charged, with taxpayers making up the difference.

Through legislation Biden pushed through by narrow majorities or via reconciliation, the amount someone would pay each month in the first two categories dropped to zero. And as Obamacare became essentially free, millions signed up — enrolling at rates the plan had never seen since its inception in 2013.

The overall figures reflect this explosion. Between 2016 and 2020, an average of 8.5 million people signed up for a subsidized Obamacare policy each year, and in none of those years did the figure equal 9 million, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In 2021, however, the subsidized total topped 10 million, and by 2024 it had nearly doubled to 19.5 million, CMS figures show.

“It’s all counterintuitive that when enrollment isn’t being publicized, no one is out beating the bushes to get people enrolled like we had in the early years of Obamacare,” said Ed Haislmaier, a health care expert at the Heritage Foundation. “Amazing that a product’s sales would go through the roof when nobody was talking about it.”

Some analysts believe the numbers indicate rampant fraud. Blase claimed in a letter to the Wall Street Journal that the expansion has created an explosion of phantom patients — including 6.4 million of them so far in 2025. “The problem isn’t real people with coverage they don’t use — it’s fraudulent sign-ups who never should have been subsidized,” he wrote.

Haislmaier agreed. “We don’t have an exact number for how many people might be fake. I don’t think anyone does,” he said. “What we do have is a lot of circumstantial evidence, a lot of data points, and a lot of information about how the markets have always operated to suggest there is massive fraud here.”

We’re sending billions of dollars to insurance companies for policies that people are unaware they’re enrolled in and do not use,” he posted.

On the other side are Democrats who make strange political bedfellows of the insurance industry. Some who traditionally oppose big business, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), insist these recent subsidies must continue, preferably permanently. For them, Obamacare more than doubling — from 11.4 million to more than 24 million between 2020 and today — is a success sign of government-run health care.

Warren compared ending the subsidies to taking health care away from people.

“Still waiting to find out how Trump and Republicans think cutting health insurance for 15 million Americans makes America healthy again,” she posted on Sept. 15.

Polls suggest support for government-subsidized health care is a partisan issue. Last November, Gallup reported that “90% of Democrats say that the federal government is responsible for American health care coverage, while 65% of Independents hold the same view. Although only 32% of Republicans share that opinion.” Another survey found that among those receiving subsidies, people who voted for Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than two to one.

Insurers say the Paragon study was flawed and accused the think tank of misunderstanding how insurance works. It’s not unusual for homeowners or car insurance policyholders to go years without filing a claim, and the same could be true with health care, they say. According to the industry and Democrats, the ballooning numbers reflect a thriving market in which many more Americans are enjoying health care coverage, as stated in a rebuttal released by AHIP in August.

Republicans want to let the subsidies expire. Democrats want to make them permanent.

Of course, that leaves some wiggle room, such as extending the subsidies for another year or some set period of time, a kicking-the-can option long favored by Congress.

Whatever the outcome, large subsidies that have always been part of Obamacare will continue. For all the hue and cry about rising costs, the elimination of Biden-era sweeteners would simply return the system to the way it was operating before 2021, Kalisz said.

“It’s crony math, a kind of corporate welfare,” she told RealClearInvestigations. “Why are the insurers now making it seem like all the subsidies are going away? It’s a form of scaring and spooking the public.”

James Varney, The Blaze

Who or What Will Finally End Hamas?

Hamas is an irredeemable terrorist cartel that subverts Gaza, uses civilians as shields, and must be dismantled and barred from power before any genuine peace can begin.

Hamas was born and exists to kill Jews, seek the destruction of Israel, and, to some extent, overthrow or subvert pro-Western Arab governments. Period.

Hamas was willing to execute its Palestinian Authority rivals, cancel all elections after its first and only victory, hold kangaroo death courts to murder dissidents, and steal hundreds of billions of dollars in Western and international relief. It has already violated the ceasefire, attacking and killing Israelis, and now claims it has “lost” the remains of Israeli hostages, whom it likely murdered (and thus does not want more physical evidence of their barbarity).

For those ends, it diverted billions of dollars from the people of Gaza to build a vast subterranean labyrinth of military headquarters and arsenals. It expropriated hospitals, mosques, and schools for use as tunnel entries and exits, using expendable civilian shields to protect its rich terrorist hierarchy. Hamas always counted on plenty of collateral damage to sway the Western left to become active enablers of its murderous causes—in a way, it is also stone silent on other “occupied land” and “refugees,” from the recent ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan and Nigeria to the long-standing illegal occupations of Northern Cyprus and swaths of the Congo.

Hamas will never give up power, despite the fact that its ruling elite is all but wiped out, thousands of its foot soldiers are dead, and it is now loathed by most nations of the Middle East. The subtext of every negotiation over the future of Gaza is that almost every Arab regime privately wants the U.S. or Israel to eliminate Hamas. It is likely more popular at American college campuses. 

One, anyone with Hamas ties, formal or informal, should be prohibited from entering the U.S. and the EU and their Western allies.

Two, because Hamas has already been branded a terrorist organization for the past 28 years, U.S. campuses should finally be warned that student participation in pro-terrorist demonstrations championing Hamas would be equivalent to rapid expulsion. Businesses, NGOs, and fronts that empower Hamas should be warned that they will be debanked, fined, and prosecuted. In the West, Hamas should be further rebranded as a pariah no different from ISIS.

Three, no sanctions should be lifted from Iran until the end of its nuclear program is verified, and it ceases all funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. The quickest way for the bankrupt theocracy to implode is to keep it under sanctions and embargoes while it shorts its own people in stealthy attempts to fund its terrorist tentacles—a suicidal trajectory that alone might lead the Iranian street or military to turn on the theocracy.

There are three entities who bear the responsibility to end Hamas under the new peace accords: the moderate Arab regimes of the Gulf, Egypt, Jordan, and perhaps Turkey, along with the U.S. and Israel. All of them wish Hamas to vanish as much as they fear doing so themselves. So while it is far-fetched that the three forces would act in concert to finish off Hamas, it is incumbent upon them not to prevent any of the others from crushing Hamas at its first sign of regrouping to doom the peace.

In practical terms, that reality likely means that Israel must finish off Hamas, with full U.S. support—and tacit Arab acquiescence. But key to the present ceasefire and possible peace is a comprehensive plan to anticipate Hamas’s return to terrorism.

Hamas’s entire underground complex must be destroyed as a prerequisite for any rebuilding of Gaza. The tunnels should be blown up, collapsed, and filled with the rubble of the war Hamas precipitated.

Victor Davis Hanson

Taking Stock of No Kings Events

Like many Americans, I watched with interest as the “No Kings” spectacle unfolded. It was rather like a box of Monty Python’s chocolates. I had no idea what I was going to get, but I was pretty sure I wasn’t going to like it much. In this, at least, I was not disappointed.

So, what, exactly, did this crunchy frog of a “No Kings” thing accomplish? We haven’t had any kings since the day we declared our independence. And before I had my coffee made this morning, I was deeply concerned, so I checked. Turns out, we still don’t. So, apparently, the protests were quite successful in helping us dodge the bullet. (Well, we still have Stephen King, but, undesirable as that may be, let’s not worry about that, at least for now.)

From the after-action reports that I’m seeing from around the country, indications are that, for the most part, grayer heads prevailed among the protesters to the tune of 80% or 90% in some cities. Based on appearances, the protest organizers must have raided every bingo hall they could find in every reliably leftist city in the country. (That might explain the one group shuffling around the Colorado state capitol that was reportedly chanting, “B27.”)  I suppose many viewed it as a last fling for the Woodstock generation. 

Eric Florack, PJ Media