Ten Habits That Actually Predict Longevity

Plus, one more that makes it all worthwhile. Listen to my Mom.

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 22, 2026

There is an enormous industry devoted to helping us live longer.

Supplements. Powders. Cold plunges. Oxygen chambers. Wearable monitors. Exotic diets. Expensive blood panels measuring things most of us had never heard of five years ago.

Some of it may help.

But if you step back and ask a simpler question — what habits actually show up consistently in people who live longer? — the list becomes remarkably ordinary.

Almost disappointingly so.

🅱️ Bob: “You mean I don’t need a $900 stainless-steel bathtub full of ice?”

Not yet, Bob.

Here are ten habits that matter.

1. Don’t smoke.

Nothing clever here.

Smoking remains one of the most effective ways ever devised to shorten a human life. It damages the cardiovascular system, lungs and nearly everything supplied by blood.

If you don’t smoke, don’t start.

If you do, stopping is probably worth more than almost anything else on this list.

🅱️ Bob: “There goes the wellness seminar.”

2. Keep moving.

You do not have to become an athlete.

Walk. Work in the yard. Climb stairs. Carry things. Ride a bicycle. Move your body often enough that it remembers what it was designed to do.

The official recommendations generally call for around 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week.

But the important dividing line may be much simpler:

Moving is better than sitting.

3. Stay strong.

This becomes more important as we age.

Muscle is not merely cosmetic equipment for young men taking photographs of themselves at the gym.

Strength helps us walk, balance, recover from illness, control blood sugar and avoid the cascade that begins when an older person becomes physically fragile.

You don’t need to bench press your Buick.

But you should still be able to get out of a chair, carry groceries and pick something up from the ground.

4. Control your blood pressure.

High blood pressure is boring.

It also damages arteries, kidneys, the heart and brain for years without announcing itself.

That combination makes it dangerous.

We pay enormous attention to diseases that frighten us while sometimes ignoring the number quietly appearing on the blood-pressure cuff.

The cuff may be telling us something important.

5. Keep your metabolic machinery working.

Normal blood sugar matters.

So does avoiding severe obesity and insulin resistance.

Diabetes is not an isolated problem. It travels with cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, nerve damage and a collection of other things most people would prefer not to collect.

Once again, the prescription tends to be irritatingly familiar:

Move more. Eat reasonably. Don’t get enormously fat.

🅱️ Bob: “This article isn’t selling anything very well.”

Exactly.

6. Eat mostly real food.

There is no shortage of people prepared to tell you that one particular food will save your life.

It probably won’t.

A sensible diet looks suspiciously like food your grandparents would recognize:

Vegetables. Fruit. Beans. Nuts. Fish. Meat in reasonable amounts. Whole foods. Not too much sugar. Not too much highly processed junk.

You can argue about carbohydrates until everyone at the table dies of old age.

The larger point survives.

7. Sleep.

Human beings require sleep.

This apparently came as a surprise to the modern productivity industry.

Chronic sleep deprivation is associated with worse cardiovascular health, poorer metabolic function and a variety of other problems.

There is no magic number that applies to everybody, but most adults function best somewhere around seven or eight hours.

If you routinely get five, convincing yourself that you are the exception may not make you one.

8. Keep other people in your life.

This may be the least appreciated item on the list.

Strong social relationships are repeatedly associated with longer survival. Isolation is associated with earlier death.

Human beings appear to require other human beings.

Family. Friends. Neighbors. Church. Clubs. Workmates. Somebody who notices when you don’t show up.

The mechanism is probably complicated.

The result isn’t.

🅱️ Bob: “Apparently yelling at your brother still counts as social interaction.”

Within limits.

9. Don’t drink too much.

For years we were told that a glass of wine might be practically medicinal.

That proposition has become increasingly difficult to defend.

Heavy drinking clearly shortens lives. Lower consumption is safer than higher consumption. And if you don’t drink now, there is no medical reason to begin.

This does not require Puritanism.

It requires arithmetic.

10. Keep having a reason to get up in the morning.

This one is harder to measure, but I think it belongs here.

People need something to do.

Work. Family. Writing. Gardening. Building things. Fixing things. Learning something. Taking care of somebody. Arguing with people on the Internet, although I would place that somewhat lower on the list.

Retirement from a job is one thing.

Retirement from life is another.

The body seems to understand the difference.

Now look back at that list.

Do you see something missing?

Can you think of anything that makes the rest of the items worth doing?

I can.

Laugh every day.

It is usually missing from the medical lists because it is hard to measure.

You can measure blood pressure.

You can measure glucose.

You can count steps, cigarettes, drinks, hours of sleep and pounds around the waist.

Humor does not fit very neatly into the spreadsheet.

That does not make it unimportant.

In fact, it may be one of the most important things in the whole discussion.

People who laugh tend to be engaged with other people. Humor reduces tension. It gives us distance from trouble. It makes bad days more survivable and good days considerably better.

And there is something else.

Suppose you do everything right.

You eat properly.

You exercise.

You sleep eight hours.

You monitor your blood pressure.

You avoid cigarettes and excess alcohol.

You preserve your muscle mass and carefully shepherd yourself toward ninety-five.

Then what?

🅱️ Bob: “Congratulations. You have successfully extended the warranty.”

Exactly.

Longevity by itself is not the objective.

The objective is to remain alive in a way that makes being alive worth extending.

That is where humor comes in.

Laughing does not merely belong on the longevity list.

It may be the thing that gives the rest of the list a reason to exist.

Longevity gives you more years. Humor gives you something to live for.

So laugh every day.

Laugh at yourself.

Laugh with your spouse.

Laugh with your friends.

Laugh at politicians. They have certainly done their part.

And when life gets particularly absurd, appreciate the fact that it has at least provided fresh material.

My mother often said:

“Life ain’t nuthin’ without humor.”

She really didn’t use the word ain’t in her normal speech.

But it added a little Bakersfield grit to the pronouncement.

At any rate, here I am quoting her years after she left this earth.

I guess that was the point.

🅱️ Bob: “Sounds like she got the last word.”

She usually did.

Share

Leave a comment

A Brief Discussion of the DSA Platform

What if Bill Buckley were given the opportunity to observe and critique the DSA?

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 21, 2026

It might look something like this.

Before we proceed, it is worth admiring the DSA platform in its native habitat: a document of such magnificent confidence that it proposes to abolish substantial portions of civilization and then seems mildly surprised that the rest of us do not volunteer to be managed by grad-student enthusiasm.

For reference, these are not archaeological fragments from socialist pamphlets of another era. They come from DSA’s current 2026 national program, Workers Deserve More.

Here are the highlights:

• Establish paid family leave for all workers and a 32-hour workweek with full pay and benefits.

• Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals, including gender-affirming care.

• Enact reparations.

• Disempower police unions and redirect funding to public services as steps toward fully abolishing the police and prison system.

• Defund the Department of War.

• End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases.

• End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents’ brutality.

• Legalize migration.

• Grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status.

• Provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents.

• End visa caps and quotas.

• Abolish the Electoral College.

• Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

• Implement proportional representation and ranked-choice voting in all elections.

• Abolish the Senate.

• Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.

Now then.

If one were looking for a platform that mistakes desire for policy, this would be a respectable candidate. It offers the familiar socialist miracle: more benefits, fewer hours, no border, no police, no prisons, no Electoral College, no Senate, no foreign wars, no private ownership of the commanding heights and, one gathers, no unpleasant interruptions from arithmetic.

Consider first the 32-hour workweek at full pay and benefits, a proposal possessing the innocent charm of something devised by people for whom payroll is largely theoretical. Wages would remain intact, hours would fall by 20 percent, benefits would continue, and productivity would presumably rise to meet the occasion out of ideological courtesy.

The difficulty is not moral but mathematical. Businesses faced with substantially higher labor costs must respond somehow: through prices, hiring, automation, reduced service, lower margins, fewer hours elsewhere, or closure. One may dislike those choices. One may legislate furiously against them. One may even organize a symposium. They remain choices.

Universal healthcare ‘at no cost to individuals’ has the same appeal as any good magic trick—right up until someone asks who paid for the rabbit.

There is always a cost. The question is merely where it appears: taxes, rationing, wait times, reduced access, lower reimbursement, bureaucratic permission, or some combination thereof. The DSA formulation attempts the pleasant trick of abolishing the price while retaining all the advantages of scarcity-free abundance. It is rather like repealing gravity while preserving the staircase.

Then come reparations, an idea whose moral certainty tends to be inversely proportional to the number of practical questions asked about it.

Who pays? Who receives? How is eligibility determined? By ancestry? By documented injury? By racial classification? Across how many generations? What of recent immigrants? What of descendants whose family histories include both victims and beneficiaries of earlier injustice?

And how much does each qualified recipient receive compared with everyone else—and why?

History, regrettably, is less tidy than a slogan. The people most insistent that society recognize infinite shades of identity become unexpectedly enthusiastic about ledger books when the moral accounting suits the occasion.

The proposal to “disempower police unions,” redirect funding and proceed toward “fully abolishing the police and prison system” marks the point at which the platform abandons reform for anthropology.

The premise appears to be that civilization may dispense with coercive institutions and that coercive people, impressed by the gesture, will voluntarily follow suit.

They will not.

Abolishing police does not abolish predation. Abolishing prisons does not abolish people from whom society must occasionally be protected. It merely transfers power from accountable institutions, however imperfect, to whoever is most willing to exercise force without them.

The criminal does not disappear when the police do. He enjoys a promotion.

The foreign-policy section suffers from the same romantic difficulty.

“Defund the Department of War” has a pleasing pacifist ring until one remembers that other nations possess armies, missiles, territorial ambitions and occasionally rather firm opinions about us. “End all foreign wars” is not, strictly speaking, a strategy. Wars involve at least two parties, one of whom may prove uncooperative.

Closing overseas military bases sounds equally attractive if one assumes that geography will observe the resolution.

The world has never been especially courteous toward nations that announce in advance what they are unwilling to defend. The DSA foreign-policy doctrine seems to hold that if America ceases taking the world seriously, the world may become embarrassed and leave us alone.

History contains limited evidence for this proposition.

Immigration is handled with similar breeziness. End detention. End deportation. Legalize migration. Grant amnesty regardless of status. Remove visa caps and quotas.

At some point one has not liberalized immigration policy so much as abolished the distinction between immigration policy and arrival.

A nation that cannot distinguish between lawful entry and unlawful entry is not especially compassionate. It has simply surrendered the right to decide who may enter and under what conditions.

Borders are not a moral defect. They are one of the features by which a country demonstrates that it intends to remain a country.

Then comes the constitutional demolition project.

Abolish the Electoral College. Subordinate the executive and judiciary to Congress. Abolish the Senate.

This is presented as an enlargement of democracy, though it has the curious characteristic of eliminating precisely those institutions designed to prevent transient majorities from acquiring unchecked power.

The American constitutional system was built around the rather unfashionable suspicion that political factions, including virtuous ones, cannot always be trusted with everything they want.

The DSA response is simpler: if an institution frustrates the desired political outcome, abolish the institution.

This is democracy interpreted as appetite.

Its great weakness becomes apparent the instant the opposition wins.

And finally we arrive at public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.

The old faith survives remarkably intact: whatever one’s complaints about private concentrations of power, the solution is apparently to create concentrations of power administered by government and made considerably more difficult to escape.

Private monopolies are dangerous because they can become inefficient, unresponsive and abusive. Public monopolies possess the same possibilities with the additional power of sovereign authority.

Anyone who has spent time with public procurement, public payrolls, regulatory delays or government information systems may reasonably hesitate before handing the same machinery the commanding heights of the economy.

If an institution has difficulty keeping a website operational, assigning it the steel, energy, transportation, communications and pharmaceutical sectors may be regarded as optimism of an unusually muscular kind.

So yes, the DSA platform is ambitious.

It is also the sort of ambition that prefers abolishing constraints to reconsidering premises.

It promises abundance without tradeoffs, equality without incentives, safety without enforcement, openness without borders and democracy without institutions capable of saying no.

That is the common thread running through the entire document. Scarcity is treated as a political choice. Human nature is treated as an administrative inconvenience. Incentives are treated as bourgeois superstition. Opposition is treated not as something democratic government must accommodate but as evidence that democratic institutions require improvement until they stop producing opposition.

One need not question the sincerity of the people proposing all this.

Sincerity may be the problem.

A civilization is not a seminar in which every contradiction can be resolved by drafting a more compassionate resolution. It is an arrangement among millions of imperfect people possessing conflicting interests, limited resources, divergent ambitions and an occasionally stubborn attachment to reality.

The DSA platform is therefore not merely a collection of extravagant policies.

It is a mood board for the apocalypse, assembled by people who regard history as an obstacle course that can be dismantled by sufficient sincerity.

One suspects history has heard this before.

Share

Leave a comment

California Reinvents the Laws of Traction

Sacramento discovers that tires should roll easier, grip harder, cost less, and obey physics only when convenient.

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 20, 2026

I read a Substack article about California’s new tire regulations.

I was hoping to learn what the regulations actually do, what provisions they contain, how tire manufacturers will have to change their products, and how any of this might affect me.

Instead I got Barack Obama, National Lampoon, gasoline taxes, bullets, prostitution, pedophilia, Christianity, and “rotate your tires.”

What I did not get was the one thing I wanted to know:

What does the damn law say?

So here is my substitute for the no-information article.

California is imposing new efficiency standards on replacement tires—the tires you buy after the originals wear out.

Not spare tires.

Replacement tires.

And the target is something called rolling resistance.

I think I have been exhibiting rolling resistance to CA unelected leaders for my entire adult life.

Rolling resistance is the energy your tire consumes simply by rolling down the road. Rubber flexes as it enters the contact patch, squishes under the weight of the car, heats up, and then reforms as it comes around again.

That deformation consumes energy.

California wants less of it.

🅱️ Bob: “Naturally. Sacramento has finally found a way to regulate squish.”

When you think about it in practical terms, rolling resistance and traction are often competing demands. Traction depends in part on the tire deforming and conforming to the surface beneath it. Anyone who has driven off-road knows the principle. When we need more grip from a Jeep, we air down the tires. The tread spreads, flexes, and conforms to rocks and terrain.

That is precisely the behavior California is trying to reduce in another context.

🅱️ Bob: “Apparently the tire should deform when I need traction, but not when Sacramento needs mileage.”

Beginning in stages, replacement tires sold in California will have to meet increasingly stringent rolling-resistance requirements. Tires that don’t meet the standard eventually cannot be sold there.

At first glance, this sounds wonderfully unobjectionable.

More efficient tires.

Better mileage.

Lower emissions.

Everybody wins.

Except tires don’t work that way.

A tire is not a single-purpose device.

It is an elaborate bundle of compromises.

Grip.

Wet braking.

Dry braking.

Cornering.

Ride quality.

Noise.

Tread life.

Heat resistance.

Load capacity.

Cost.

And rolling resistance.

Tire engineers spend their careers moving those variables around without wrecking something else.

And there is an especially obvious tension between rolling resistance and traction.

Rubber grips the road partly because it deforms against it. That deformation creates friction, hysteresis, heat—and rolling resistance.

Reduce one aggressively enough and eventually you start affecting the other.

The easiest way to understand the idea is to take it to the ridiculous extreme.

Want really low rolling resistance?

Put soapbox-derby tires on your Buick.

Skinny little wheels.

Hard rubber.

Tiny contact patch.

It will roll beautifully.

🅱️ Bob: “Excellent mileage. Braking sold separately.”

Take the idea farther and you eventually arrive at something approaching a steel wheel.

Very little rubber deformation.

Very little energy lost.

Terrific rolling efficiency.

Not quite as terrific when somebody pulls out in front of you on a wet freeway.

Of course, real tire engineering is more sophisticated than that. Modern manufacturers use silica, polymers, tread design, carcass construction and other technologies to reduce rolling resistance without surrendering traction one-for-one.

But physics does not disappear because Sacramento passed a regulation.

There is still a tradeoff.

And California knows it.

That is why the regulation doesn’t merely establish a rolling-resistance standard.

It also includes a wet-grip requirement.

Think about that for a moment.

The state is effectively saying:

Reduce friction here.

But don’t reduce friction too much over there.

🅱️ Bob: “Nothing inspires confidence like the phrase ‘minimum wet grip.’”

That wet-grip requirement is important. It prevents manufacturers from simply building rock-hard tires that roll forever and stop sometime next Thursday in the middle of a busy intersection.

But it does not answer the real question.

“Minimum wet grip” is not the same thing as maximum grip.

It is not even necessarily the same grip provided by the tire I would otherwise choose.

Suppose I am willing to give up one or two percent in fuel economy because I want considerably better braking, cornering or wet-weather traction.

Why shouldn’t I?

Maybe I live in the mountains.

Maybe I drive a performance car.

Maybe I tow.

Maybe I simply care more about stopping distance than squeezing another fraction of a mile out of a gallon of gasoline.

That is one of the reasons an aftermarket tire business exists in the first place.

Original-equipment tires are selected by automakers while balancing fuel economy, EV range, noise, ride, price, handling and government efficiency targets.

Owners frequently replace them because they want a different compromise.

More grip. Better snow performance. Longer tread life. Stronger construction. Better handling. Lower price.

California has now decided that one characteristic—rolling efficiency—deserves government priority over some portion of those individual choices.

🅱️ Bob: “I don’t think I need a California bureaucrat telling me how to spend my money at Pep Boys.”

That brings us to the question almost nobody seems interested in answering:

What tires disappear?

How many perfectly safe tires currently sold in California will fail the new rolling-resistance requirements?

What characteristics do those tires have that consumers currently value?

Are some of them stickier?

Do some have better dry braking?

Better cornering?

Longer tread life?

Lower prices?

What happens to those characteristics when engineers have to redesign the tire around a government efficiency target?

And here is the big one:

What is the counterfactual?

California can calculate projected gasoline savings down to the gallon.

It can estimate carbon dioxide reductions.

It can calculate the theoretical dollars motorists will save.

Fine.

Now calculate the other side.

If the tires required under the new standard provide even slightly less traction under some conditions, what happens to accident rates?

What happens to stopping distances?

What happens when a driver loses control in the rain?

What is the economic value of one prevented crash?

One prevented serious injury?

One prevented death?

Maybe the answer is zero.

Maybe modern tire technology allows manufacturers to meet California’s standards without sacrificing any meaningful safety, performance or durability whatsoever.

Wonderful.

Show us.

That is what regulation is supposed to demonstrate before eliminating consumer choices.

Instead we usually get the benefits calculated to three decimal places and the tradeoffs waved away with assurances that everything will be fine.

Then there is the money.

Whenever government changes the specifications for an entire industry, somebody wins and somebody loses.

Large premium tire manufacturers have spent decades and enormous sums developing sophisticated low-rolling-resistance technology.

Companies already capable of meeting California’s future standards have a substantial advantage over manufacturers selling cheaper products that may require redesign, retooling or abandonment.

That does not prove corruption.

It does not prove anybody paid anybody off.

It does mean we should ask the obvious question:

Who benefits when government raises the technological minimum required to sell a tire?

The companies already above that minimum certainly won’t complain.

And there are newer companies whose entire commercial pitch is built around highly efficient, low-rolling-resistance tires.

Again, nothing sinister is required.

This is how regulation frequently works.

Environmental groups demand a higher standard.

Government adopts it.

Sophisticated manufacturers demonstrate that it can be achieved.

Smaller or cheaper competitors absorb the cost.

Consumers lose some choices.

The surviving companies call it progress.

🅱️ Bob: “Amazing how often mandatory innovation already has somebody ready to sell it to you.”

There is another wrinkle worth knowing.

This did not begin with one California bureaucrat waking up last Tuesday and deciding tires needed fixing.

The underlying effort goes back more than two decades, with environmental organizations pushing California toward replacement-tire efficiency standards for years.

That makes the story more interesting, not less.

Because the issue isn’t one politician.

It is an entire governing philosophy.

Find an efficiency metric.

Declare it socially desirable.

Turn it into a standard.

Require every manufacturer to optimize around it.

Calculate the theoretical savings.

Then treat the lost choices as somebody else’s problem.

Maybe California is right.

Maybe there really is a vast pool of inefficient replacement tires wasting gasoline for no useful reason.

Maybe tire manufacturers can eliminate that waste while preserving traction, durability, performance and price.

If so, demonstrate it.

But that isn’t the same question as whether lower rolling resistance is desirable.

Of course lower rolling resistance is desirable.

So is more traction.

So is shorter stopping distance.

So is longer tread life.

So is lower cost.

The entire art of tire engineering lies in deciding how much of each you want.

California has decided it should participate in that decision.

That is the story.

Not Obama.

Not pedophilia.

Not National Lampoon.

Not “rotate your tires.”

The story is that California is changing the engineering requirements for the tires you will be allowed to buy—and doing so in the name of a tradeoff that most drivers have never even been told exists.

Which brings us back to my soapbox-derby car.

Those skinny little tires roll wonderfully.

Put four of them on a family sedan and the absurdity becomes obvious.

Efficiency is not the only thing a tire is supposed to do.

🅱️ Bob: “Maybe just let ME buy the damn tire.”

Share

Leave a comment

The Left That Scared William F. Buckley

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 18, 2026

Prelude

I first noticed William F. Buckley Jr. when I was still a pre-teen, on a black-and-white television.

I doubt I had any clear idea what separated conservatives from liberals. To me, they were mostly politicians, and politicians were something adults seemed to understand.

My mother called Buckley “the smartest man on television.”

My father seemed to agree.

So I watched.

I had never heard anybody talk like him. Not on television. Not anywhere.

What struck me, even then, was the peculiar way he made other people uncomfortable. His guests were often accomplished, important, thoroughly accustomed to being listened to. But Buckley questioned them as though no one had ever quite gotten around to doing it before.

And he never raised his voice.

I think I noticed that.

There was no pounding of the table, no theatrical outrage, no attempt to overpower the other man. Buckley would wander toward his point—sometimes so leisurely you wondered where he was going—with those enormous words appearing along the way.

But the big words were never decoration.

They were doing work.

Then, somehow, the wandering stopped.

There was the conclusion.

And the knife was in.

Usually delivered with that friendly, slightly mischievous smile, almost as though Buckley himself were pleased that he had managed to arrive at exactly the right place without broadsiding his intellectual opponent to get there.

Only later did I understand the scale of what he had undertaken. This man felt strongly enough about what was happening to the country that he founded a magazine essentially devoted to telling the Left:

Stop.

Then he went on television and spent more than thirty years doing much the same thing on Firing Line.

Thirty years of asking the question the other fellow had hoped nobody would ask.

And doing it unrehearsed.

I was too young to understand the politics.

But I understood the presence.

And I never forgot it.

Years later, I found him again.

I started watching old William F. Buckley clips on YouTube almost by accident, and within a few minutes I was hooked all over again.

It wasn’t simply what he believed. It was the man himself: the posture, the half-smile, the impossible vocabulary, the long sentences that wandered through three subordinate clauses, paused for an obscure reference, insulted somebody along the way, and somehow landed exactly where he intended.

Buckley was funny without telling jokes, combative without shouting, arrogant without quite becoming unbearable. He had the rare ability to make an insult sound almost like a compliment. Nobody talks like this anymore, certainly not on television.

After watching enough of him, though, another question began to bother me.

What, exactly, had William F. Buckley so worked up?

Here was this enormously gifted man devoting much of his adult life to opposing liberalism. He emerged nationally with God and Man at Yale in 1951, founded National Review four years later, and eventually became the unmistakable television face of intellectual conservatism on Firing Line. His mission was famously described as standing athwart history, yelling Stop.

So I went back and looked at the history he was yelling at.

And something strange happened.

The Left that scared William F. Buckley didn’t look all that scary anymore.

At least not from here.

Welcome to Buckley’s Nightmare

What bothered him?

Universities were becoming too liberal. Professors were replacing religious tradition and individualism with secularism, collectivism and faith in government planning. Washington was becoming too powerful. The welfare state was expanding. Intellectual elites increasingly treated their own political assumptions not as ideology, but simply as the conclusions enlightened people reached.

And Buckley worried constantly about communism and about the tendency of Western intellectuals to underestimate or excuse the radical Left.

That was the emergency.

Liberal professors. A bigger federal government. Secularization. Government-managed equality. An intellectual class increasingly convinced it knew what was best for everyone else.

Seventy years later, you almost want to put your arm around Bill.

You poor bastard.

You had no idea.

Except that, in a way, he did.

Direction, Not Destination

This is the part worth lingering over.

Buckley was not predicting the precise destination. He was noticing the direction.

The mainstream liberal of Buckley’s prime was not today’s democratic socialist. Not remotely.

John F. Kennedy was patriotic, aggressively anti-communist and comfortable defending American power abroad. He also pushed for major reductions in marginal income-tax rates. Hubert Humphrey was a leading civil-rights liberal and an equally committed Cold Warrior. The AFL-CIO represented millions of working-class Democrats who wanted better pay and working conditions, not the abolition of capitalism.

Mainstream liberals accepted private property, constitutional government, national borders and the basic legitimacy of the American experiment. Religion remained an ordinary part of public life. Patriotism was normal. Biological sex was not a political controversy. Merit was generally understood as something that ought to be opened to people who had historically been denied a fair chance to compete.

Even the great civil-rights argument was framed largely as a demand that America live up to its own principles.

There was, of course, a radical Left, especially by the late 1960s. Buckley confronted it directly. But there was still a recognizable boundary between mainstream American liberalism and the revolutionary Left.

That boundary matters, because Buckley was looking at a comparatively restrained liberal establishment and yelling:

Stop.

Why?

Because he saw movement.

Buckley as Yardstick

That is what makes Buckley so useful now. He gives us a fixed reference point.

Put William F. Buckley in 1960. Put the American Left across from him. Mark the spot. Then move forward sixty-five years and ask a simple question: what happened to the tendencies that bothered him?

Universities did not become less liberal. The federal government did not become smaller. The administrative state did not quietly surrender authority. Government efforts to correct inequality did not stop with equality before the law. The intellectual class did not lose confidence in its ability to improve society from above, and secularization did not reverse itself.

Whatever judgment one makes about each of those developments, the direction is hard to miss.

It kept going.

That was Buckley’s deeper concern. Not merely what liberalism was in 1960, but what it might become if nothing inside it ever said: this far, no farther.

Now Try the Same Experiment With Conservatives

Conservatives changed too. Of course they did.

A conservative dropped into modern America from Buckley’s early adulthood would find plenty that was unfamiliar. Gay men and lesbians live openly in ordinary American life. Same-sex marriage is broadly accepted. Interracial marriage, once fiercely controversial, is now completely unremarkable. Women occupy positions in business, government, law, medicine and the military that would have been unusual in Buckley’s youth.

A great deal of private behavior once subjected to public condemnation is now generally treated as private behavior.

Conservatives accommodated those changes. Sometimes willingly, sometimes reluctantly, and sometimes after losing the argument.

But move underneath those cultural changes and examine the philosophy.

Individual liberty. Private property. Free enterprise. Religious freedom. Personal responsibility. Constitutional restraint. National sovereignty. Federalism. Family and civil society. Suspicion of concentrated government power. The belief that markets usually work better than planners. The belief that America, although imperfect, remains a country worth preserving.

Buckley would recognize the conversation immediately.

But the philosophical structure would be familiar.

Conservatives changed their minds about quite a few things. They changed their underlying philosophy about remarkably few.

And that may be the great asymmetry.

Conservatives became more accepting of cultural change while remaining anchored to recognizable first principles. The Left changed much more fundamentally in what it believed society itself ought to become.

Where Is the Stop Sign?

Consider the progression.

Equality before the law became equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity became concern over unequal outcomes. Unequal outcomes became evidence of inequity.

Tolerance became acceptance, and acceptance increasingly became affirmation.

Nondiscrimination gave way in some quarters to explicit group remedies. Free speech began competing with claims of harm and psychological safety. Sex became increasingly detached from biology. Merit, once demanded as the answer to discrimination, became suspect whenever unequal outcomes persisted.

Reasonable people can argue about each individual step. That is not really the point.

The more interesting question is: what principle says Stop?

Where is the limiting principle? At what point does progressive politics say that enough equality has been achieved, enough redistribution attempted, enough restructuring completed, enough disparities corrected, enough inherited institutions revised?

At what point does it say:

We have arrived.

Buckley suspected there was no such moment.

That is what makes his old complaints seem less quaint than they first appear.

The Fortune Teller

Buckley could not see the future. He would not have understood half the political vocabulary of 2026.

But he understood direction.

You do not need to know exactly where a river ends to know which way the water is flowing.

Buckley saw liberalism flowing toward greater centralization, greater secularization, greater egalitarianism administered by government, greater confidence in intellectual elites and greater suspicion of inherited institutions. He objected while those tendencies were still comparatively modest.

That is why watching him now produces such a strange sensation.

The things that alarmed him can seem almost harmless to us. Yet most of them did not disappear.

They expanded.

He wasn’t standing at the destination.

He was standing upstream.

The Great Asymmetry

The conservative of 2026 would surprise William F. Buckley culturally, but he would not be incomprehensible to him philosophically.

The modern progressive Left presents almost the reverse problem. Buckley would recognize many of the intellectual strains. What would astonish him is how far some of them traveled.

That is the asymmetry.

Conservatism changed substantially in what it was willing to accept, but comparatively little in its basic philosophical roots.

The Left kept moving.

Buckley spent his life standing athwart history yelling Stop. For decades, the line sounded theatrical, perhaps even a little ridiculous.

But that judgment depends entirely on where you think the road was headed.

We now have seventy years of road behind us.

The remarkable thing is not that William F. Buckley knew exactly where it would lead.

It is that he noticed, very early, that there were no brakes.

Share

Leave a comment

Does Having a Different President Result In Less Crime?

Or Did the Dramatic Changes Just Sort of Happen for No Reason?

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 16, 2026

There is a particular sound an old engine makes when something isn’t quite right.

A tick. A clatter. Maybe a lifter complaining under the hood.

You can take the car apart, consult three mechanics, study oil pressure charts and debate the molecular properties of petroleum additives.

Or you can pour in a little Sea Foam and see if the noise stops.

Keep that thought.

Because something remarkable is happening in America.

The country is getting quieter.

Not politically, of course. That would require divine intervention.

But criminally.

Murders are plunging. Robberies are plunging. Carjackings are plunging. Auto theft is falling. Violent crime across America’s major cities has dropped at rates we have not seen in decades.

• 2025 national murder rate down 18.1%

• homicide down another roughly 17–18% in major-city samples in early 2026

• carjackings down sharply

• robbery down sharply

And this creates a delicate problem for the people who spent years explaining why Donald Trump’s approach to crime was simplistic, cruel, authoritarian, xenophobic, racist, counterproductive, or—on especially productive afternoons—all six.

Trump campaigned on crime.

He said the border would close.

He said violent criminals would be prosecuted.

He said police would be supported.

He said cartels would be attacked.

He said illegal guns would be seized.

He said repeat offenders would stop revolving through courthouse doors.

He said disorder would no longer be treated as an unfortunate side effect of social injustice.

Then he became president.

And crime went down.

A lot.

Now, correlation is not causation.

We know this because people who ignored that rule whenever crime rose under Republican politicians have suddenly rediscovered it.

So let’s be careful.

Crime had already begun falling from its horrific post-2020 peak before Trump returned to office. That is true. Some cities were improving during the final Biden years.

But that story comes with complications of its own.

There were serious questions about crime reporting during that period. FBI reporting systems had undergone major changes. Some early statistics were incomplete. And in Washington, D.C., allegations eventually surfaced that serious offenses had been downgraded or classified in ways that made crime numbers look better than they otherwise would have.

Perhaps some of the skepticism was justified.

Fine.

But now we have a problem.

The numbers keep going down.

And Joe Biden is no longer president.

If Democratic-run cities were somehow massaging crime statistics to make Democratic crime policies look successful, why would they continue doing it now?

For Donald Trump?

What exactly would be the incentive?

Does the mayor of Chicago wake up every morning wondering how he can make Trump look more effective?

Does New York City Hall have a secret MAGA statistics department?

Is Oakland cooking the books because somebody wants Jeanine Pirro to look good on television?

At some point, the simpler explanation deserves a hearing.

Crime really is going down.

And while it is going down, something else has happened.

Consequences have started coming back.

That may be the most important word in this entire story.

Consequences.

For years, some of America’s largest cities conducted a remarkable social experiment.

Prosecutors announced that entire categories of crime would be treated more leniently.

Cash bail was attacked without always replacing it with meaningful detention for dangerous defendants.

Repeat offenders accumulated arrest records that began to resemble frequent-flyer statements.

Police were told simultaneously to prevent crime and to avoid doing many of the things traditionally associated with preventing crime.

Retail theft became a business model.

Open-air drug use became urban scenery

And during the riots of 2020, America watched government officials explain with straight faces why burning police cars, shattered storefronts and autonomous zones required nuance.

The criminal justice system gradually became less about crime and punishment and more about crime and explanation.

Then voters began changing their minds.

• Chesa Boudin was recalled in San Francisco.

• Pamela Price was recalled in Alameda County.

• George Gascón was thrown out in Los Angeles.

• Mike Schmidt lost in Portland.

Different cities. Different elections. Same message.

Enough.

And something else happened.

Prosecutors started prosecuting again.

This is where Washington, D.C., becomes particularly interesting.

Jeanine Pirro—yes, Judge Jeanine—became U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Whatever one thinks of her television career, the numbers coming out of her office are not television numbers.

• Federal prosecution increased sharply.

• The percentage of arrests declined for prosecution collapsed.

• Illegal firearms were seized by the thousands.

• Federal agents began concentrating on repeat offenders, armed criminals, carjackers and violent crews.

Meanwhile, homicides dropped.

• Carjackings dropped.

• Robberies dropped.

• Vehicle theft dropped.

Was every one of those crimes prevented by Jeanine Pirro?

Of course not.

But here is a proposition apparently considered radical in some academic circles:

A criminal sitting in jail cannot carjack you tonight.

Bob looked puzzled.

🅱️ “So incapacitation works?”

Apparently we may need another federally funded study.

Washington isn’t the only place.

Federal enforcement increased in Memphis.

Trump’s administration intensified its campaign against cartels and trafficking organizations.

The southern border—the greatest uncontrolled human conveyor belt in modern American history—was effectively shut down.

That doesn’t mean every illegal immigrant was a criminal. That would be absurd.

It means that one giant uncontrolled avenue through which gang members, traffickers, fugitives, drugs and cartel operatives could enter the United States was dramatically constricted.

Does that matter?

Maybe.

Should we at least be allowed to ask?

Apparently that question requires considerably more scholarly caution than asking whether climate change caused a thunderstorm.

Then there are the riots.

Or rather, there largely aren’t.

We have had demonstrations, ugly confrontations and isolated political violence.

What we have not had is anything resembling the sustained national insanity of 2020—cities burning, police precincts abandoned, businesses looted, prosecutors declining cases and politicians competing to explain why the people setting fires were actually engaged in an important conversation about social justice.

That atmosphere matters too.

Crime does not occur in a laboratory.

Criminals watch.

• They notice whether police are afraid to arrest them.

• They notice whether prosecutors prosecute.

• They notice whether judges detain them.

• They notice whether politicians excuse them.

• They notice whether mobs are allowed to occupy streets.

• And they notice when the rules change.

This doesn’t require a Ph.D.

It requires eyesight.

So can we assign all the credit for America’s remarkable crime decline to Donald Trump?

I don’t know.

Is there a clean statistical correlation between the closed border, increased federal enforcement, tougher prosecution, the defeat of progressive prosecutors, pressure on the cartels, reduced urban disorder and declining violent crime?

There certainly appears to be enough of one to ask the question.

But perhaps we’re wrong.

Maybe it’s sunspots.

El Niño.

The mesmerizing effect of TikTok.

Perhaps violent criminals all discovered pickleball simultaneously.

Researchers are welcome to investigate.

They can build models, run regressions, adjust for demographics, weather, COVID recovery, incarceration rates, police staffing, economic conditions and whatever else makes the computer happy.

I’m serious. They should. And they will. And do you think any of these university-built models will be allowed to give the Trump administration credit?

I am also old enough to appreciate a practical result.

Which brings me back to the engine.

Every now and then the lifters in my engine start making noise.

I add some Sea Foam to the oil.

The noise goes away.

Now perhaps some master mechanic can explain exactly what happened. Maybe the additive cleaned a deposit. Maybe it improved lubrication somewhere. Maybe the engine was going to quiet down anyway.

I cannot prove the causal chain.

I know this:

Before Sea Foam, noise.

After Sea Foam, less noise.

So the next time the engine starts rattling, I am not convening a symposium.

I’m adding Sea Foam.

America just spent several years listening to an increasingly noisy engine.

Murders. Carjackings. Looting. Fentanyl. Street takeovers. Repeat offenders. Riots. Open borders. Prosecutors who seemed more suspicious of punishment than of criminals.

Then the country put Donald Trump back in charge.

The border closed.

Federal enforcement increased.

Prosecution increased.

Cartels got hammered.

Police got backed.

Consequences returned.

And the engine got quieter.

People are free to argue about why.

Bob already has his answer.

He picked up the can of Sea Foam.

🅱️ “Put another bottle in.”

Share

Leave a comment

PART III — THE CHOICE

The Future Has Already Started

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 14, 2026

There is a certain elegance in watching a political movement arrive at power just as some of its most celebrated ideas are being hurried toward the exits.

Democratic socialism is having rather a good year.

Its candidates are winning primaries. Its language has migrated into the Democratic mainstream. Zohran Mamdani governs New York. Abdul El-Sayed has captured a United States Senate nomination in Michigan. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, once regarded as the party’s outermost ideological weather station, has discovered people standing considerably to her left.

One might reasonably call this ascendence.

There is only one inconvenience.

Some of the ideas that accompanied the ascent are suddenly becoming difficult to locate.

Defund the police has acquired fewer defenders.

The rhetoric of 2020 is being remembered with the tenderness normally reserved for unfortunate high-school photographs.

Candidates who once regarded familiar American institutions as objects requiring moral correction have begun rediscovering their charms.

Football, apparently, has survived.

So have the police.

So have borders, parents, merit, biology, Israel, the internal-combustion engine and several other institutions whose imminent moral obsolescence was confidently reported not very long ago.

The institutions did not change much.

The politicians did.

Reality can be terribly reactionary that way.

This presents the Democratic Party with a problem considerably more interesting than the usual dispute between liberals and conservatives.

Its insurgent wing is gaining institutional power while portions of the insurgency’s cultural program are losing political legitimacy.

The movement is advancing.

Some of its ideas are retreating.

And both things are happening at once.

That is where Part III begins.

Parts I and II brought us this far.

We established that important Democratic factions increasingly disagree not simply about means but destinations. Israel. Immigration. American power. The Senate. The constitutional order itself.

Then we watched what happens when one faction begins establishing ideological boundaries and enforcing them.

Move.

Fight.

Lose.

Now there is a fourth participant.

The voter.

And voters possess an irritating independence from political theory.

They are perfectly capable of admiring the insurgency in August and rejecting the insurgent in November.

Which brings us to Michigan.

Subscribe now

THE FIRST TEST

Abdul El-Sayed won.

That sentence deserves to stand alone.

The Democratic establishment preferred Haley Stevens. Chuck Schumer preferred Haley Stevens. Major outside money preferred Haley Stevens.

Michigan Democrats chose El-Sayed.

But only just.

His victory margin was less than one percentage point.

That is simultaneously a triumph and a warning.

The socialist-progressive wing demonstrated that it can defeat the establishment in one of the most important states in the country.

It did not demonstrate that the rest of Michigan wants what it is selling.

Now El-Sayed gets to find out.

Mike Rogers will not need to introduce Michigan voters to a complicated theory of democratic socialism.

He has an easier assignment.

He can introduce them to Abdul El-Sayed.

The old police positions.

The old statements.

The Israeli-aid position.

Medicare for All.

Hasan Piker.

Even football has somehow entered the case file.

There is something wonderfully Michigan about that last one.

A candidate may survive a seminar on democratic socialism.

Questioning football in Michigan is another matter.

The individual subjects are less important than the cumulative impression.

Politics is rarely decided by the footnotes.

Rogers wants voters to look at the whole package and ask one uncomplicated question:

Is this fellow like us?

And there, rather abruptly, the ideological test becomes an electoral one.

El-Sayed now has to reconstruct the Democratic coalition he narrowly defeated.

Black voters matter enormously in Michigan.

So do suburban voters.

So do union households.

So do independents.

So do millions of voters who have never heard of DSA, do not care about ideological taxonomies, and would rather know whether their neighborhood is safe and what gasoline costs.

That is the second test.

Can the new coalition retain enough of the old coalition to win?

HONG PASSES ONE TEST

Wisconsin supplied the counterexample.

Francesca Hong appeared headed toward victory.

She had the ideological credentials.

The activist enthusiasm.

The national attention.

And polls suggesting she might win comfortably.

Then Wisconsin Democrats voted.

David Crowley won.

Barely.

Hong passed much of the ideological test.

She did not quite pass the Wisconsin test.

Bob has another name for it.

🅱️ “She passed the DSA test. She failed the loony test.”

Crude?

Certainly.

Politically useful?

Watch the advertisements.

Hong’s defeat does not mean democratic socialism is collapsing.

Quite the opposite.

A democratic socialist came within a fraction of a percentage point of becoming the Democratic nominee for governor of one of America’s most important swing states.

That should get everyone’s attention.

But she lost.

Which means the old Democratic coalition has not disappeared.

It can still fight.

And occasionally it remembers that November comes after August.

REALITY GETS A VOTE

Something else is happening now.

The politicians who helped make the progressive politics of 2020 fashionable have begun developing remarkably selective memories about it.

Defund the police?

Well, that was a particular moment. That was way back in Woke I.

Police abolition?

Different circumstances.

The rhetoric of 2020?

Perhaps we should concentrate on what candidates believe today.

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind.

Adults do it.

The interesting part is who didn’t change.

Police still matter.

Borders still matter.

Biology still matters.

Merit still matters.

Parents still matter.

Free speech still matters.

Public order still matters.

The people saying those things six years ago did not suddenly move toward AOC.

AOC moved toward reality.

That distinction deserves to be remembered.

The politics of 2020 did not arrive timidly. Its advocates frequently presented their positions as moral certainties. Disagreement was not merely mistaken.

It was racist.

Reactionary.

Backward.

Dangerous.

Then reality began submitting election returns.

Now some of the same politicians who helped police the new vocabulary would prefer that everyone stop replaying the tape.

Unfortunately, the tape survived.

Bob:

🅱️ “Turns out the right side of history has a reverse gear.”

And this is where AOC becomes uniquely useful to our trilogy.

Part II showed pressure coming from her left. DSA established conditions for its endorsement, found even AOC insufficiently aligned on Israel, and withdrew the endorsement when she failed the test.

Later, AOC moved substantially toward the position DSA had demanded. We were careful not to claim causation. We did not need to.

The standard was real.

The enforcement was real.

The movement was real.

Now another force is pushing from the opposite direction.

Voters.

Crime.

Budgets.

Governance.

Reality.

DSA says:

Move.

The electorate says:

Not so fast.

AOC is standing between the two forces.

That may be the defining Democratic problem of 2026.

MAMDANI MEETS ARITHMETIC

Zohran Mamdani has a related problem.

He won.

That changes everything.

An activist can promise.

A candidate can blame.

A mayor has to govern.

Taxes have to be collected.

Police have to show up.

Trash has to disappear.

Businesses can leave.

People can leave.

Money can leave.

Reality is annoyingly mobile.

Mamdani and the movement around him have demonstrated genuine political power. Establishment Democrats have lost. Progressive candidates have taken their places.

That is not hypothetical influence.

That is power.

But power creates the unpleasant requirement political insurgencies spend years avoiding.

Results.

For years democratic socialism could tell us what it opposed.

Now it has mayors.

Nominees.

Budgets.

Police departments.

Opposition research.

And consequences.

The movement has finally become important enough to be blamed.

That is progress of a sort.

FETTERMAN SAYS NO

Then there is John Fetterman.

He matters because he is not standing outside the Democratic Party throwing rocks at it.

He is inside.

And he keeps telling his own party that there are places he will not follow.

Israel.

Immigration enforcement.

The socialist fringe.

The growing tendency to confuse ideological maximalism with authenticity.

Fetterman is especially useful because he was not elected as an old-fashioned conservative Democrat.

He arrived as a progressive populist.

Yet here he is, increasingly drawing boundaries against his own left.

Part II asked what happens when a Democrat finally stops moving.

Fetterman may be giving us the answer.

He fights.

And if the party continues moving?

Then eventually somebody has to decide who owns the label.

THE JEWISH QUESTION RETURNS

Which brings us back to the constituency that started this series.

Jewish Democrats.

Not because they vote alike.

They don’t.

Part I established that deliberately. Bernie Sanders alone disposes of any simplistic ethnic theory. Jewish identity does not determine the answer. Political commitments do.

The better question is narrower.

What happens to the traditional liberal, pro-Israel Jewish Democrat if the political ground beneath him continues moving?

There is nothing particularly mysterious about a coalition discovering, rather late in the proceedings, that its constituent parts have interests of their own.

Perhaps he stays.

Perhaps he fights.

Perhaps he changes with the party.

Perhaps he stops donating.

Perhaps he votes Democratic for governor and Republican for Senate.

Perhaps he becomes independent.

Perhaps eventually he leaves.

Political realignment rarely begins with millions of people simultaneously changing voter registration.

It begins with permission.

Permission to split a ticket.

Permission to withhold money.

Permission to vote against your party once.

Permission to admit that the coalition no longer represents something you considered fundamental.

That is why places such as Illinois are worth watching.

Large numbers of Jewish voters there remain culturally and historically Democratic.

The interesting question is not whether they suddenly become MAGA Republicans.

It is whether Democrats can continue assuming they never will vote Republican.

Once a constituency stops being automatic, it becomes political again.

That matters before a single registration changes.

Part II anticipated precisely this kind of realignment.

A constituency loses influence.

Its preferred candidates begin losing primaries.

Positions that once enjoyed veto protection inside the coalition lose it.

Everybody may continue calling himself a Democrat.

The stationery survives.

The coalition underneath it changes.

Watch influence before registration.

THEY LOST THE MEGAPHONE

There is another difference between this ideological cycle and earlier ones.

The old megaphone isn’t what it used to be.

For decades, the institutions most capable of defining respectable political opinion—major newspapers, broadcast networks, universities, entertainment companies and much of cable news—occupied cultural territory considerably friendlier to Democrats than Republicans.

Whatever advantage that provided, the distribution system has fractured.

Podcasts.

X.

YouTube.

Substack.

TikTok.

Independent media.

The old gatekeepers remain powerful.

They are no longer gates.

That becomes especially inconvenient when politicians are trying to outrun their own past.

You do not need the evening news to replay AOC from 2020.

You need Wi-Fi.

The old clip and the new explanation can sit beside each other forever.

They can change the message.

They cannot erase the videotape.

An ideological movement that once benefited enormously from defining respectable opinion now has to compete with millions of people carrying receipts.

There goes the megaphone.

WHERE IS THE MONEY?

It is always useful, when being told that a political wave is inevitable, to inquire whether anyone appears willing to finance it.

At the end of June, the Republican National Committee reportedly held roughly $128 million in cash.

The Democratic National Committee had roughly $16 million—and more debt than cash.

That does not mean Republicans possess an eight-to-one advantage throughout American politics.

They do not.

Democratic candidates, congressional committees, unions, super PACs and outside organizations will spend enormous sums.

Nobody is holding a bake sale outside DNC headquarters.

But the contrast is difficult to dismiss.

The institution charged with maintaining the national Democratic organization entered the heart of a midterm campaign financially wounded while the Republican Party and Trump-aligned organizations sat atop enormous reserves.

Money does not guarantee victory.

El-Sayed just proved that.

But money buys something particularly useful in politics:

the ability to introduce your opponent before he introduces himself.

Mike Rogers does not have to hope Michigan voters accidentally discover Abdul El-Sayed’s old statements.

Republicans can purchase airtime.

A great deal of it.

And “Where is the money?” matters for another reason.

Poll respondents express opinions.

Donors write checks.

Those are different forms of conviction.

THE MAP HAS ALREADY MOVED

Republicans also enter November with an advantage requiring no television commercial.

The congressional map itself has changed.

Mid-decade redistricting may have shifted somewhere around five to nine House seats toward Republicans.

When control of the House can turn on three or four seats, that is not background noise.

That is the starting line.

A sufficiently strong Democratic national environment can overcome it.

Certainly.

But that sentence contains the most important word in political forecasting:

If.

THE POLLS SAY BLUE

The conventional midterm story remains wonderfully simple.

The party opposing the president usually gains.

Democrats lead the generic ballot.

Trump inspires extraordinary hostility on the left and is presently weak among many independents.

Therefore:

Blue wave.

Maybe.

But the story asks us to accept something rather curious.

• The Democratic Party itself has terrible favorability numbers.

• Its national committee is financially distressed.

• Its factions are fighting over Israel, policing, immigration and socialism.

• Some of its most visible progressive politicians are retreating from positions they championed only a few years ago.

• Traditional Democratic constituencies are being tested.

• Republicans possess enormous financial reserves.

• The House map has moved in their direction.

• And recent major-election polling has repeatedly overstated Democratic performance relative to the final result.

Yet somehow all roads lead inevitably to a Democratic wave.

Perhaps they do.

But perhaps we should watch the road.

Wisconsin supplied a useful warning.

Hong appeared comfortably ahead.

Crowley won.

Polling did not become useless.

It became mortal.

That is all we need to remember.

HAVE WE SEEN THIS BEFORE?

Political movements have an agreeable habit of declaring themselves historic before history has been consulted.

We have seen portions of this movie before.

Not exactly.

History is rarely that accommodating.

But enough to recognize the danger.

Political movements periodically confuse dominance inside their party with dominance inside the country.

Democrats learned that painfully in 1972.

The McGovern insurgency represented something real: a younger, more activist, more ideological coalition gaining influence over a Democratic Party increasingly estranged from important portions of its older base.

George McGovern won the argument inside his party.

Richard Nixon then won 49 states.

That does not make 2026 another 1972.

There is no George McGovern on a national midterm ballot.

Trump inspires an intensity of opposition Nixon did not face under comparable circumstances.

The electorate is different.

The political structure is different.

The country is different.

But one lesson travels rather well:

Capturing a party and capturing a country are not the same achievement.

That is precisely what El-Sayed now has to demonstrate in Michigan.

It is what Hong failed to demonstrate in Wisconsin.

It is what Mamdani has to demonstrate every morning when he arrives at City Hall.

And it may determine whether AOC’s newly revised politics represent maturation—

or survival.

AND THEN THERE’S GAS

After all that, America may decide the election at the gas station.

This would undoubtedly disappoint political scientists.

It would not surprise voters.

People inhabit ideologies.

They also inhabit minivans.

If gasoline falls substantially between now and November, Republicans will argue that everyday life is improving.

If it rises sharply, Democrats will need no ideological theory.

They will need a photograph of the sign.

The same goes for groceries.

Mortgage rates.

Crime.

Jobs.

Wars.

People eventually vote inside the world they actually occupy.

Reality gets the last rebuttal.

THE TEST

So where does this leave us?

Not with a prediction of a Republican landslide.

Not with a prediction of a blue wave.

With a test.

Democratic socialism has become powerful enough to influence nominations.

Powerful enough to establish ideological boundaries.

Powerful enough to defeat establishment Democrats.

Powerful enough to put its own people into major governing positions.

That is ascendence.

But at almost precisely the same moment, something else is happening.

Some of its most famous positions are being abandoned.

• Its candidates are confronting old statements that worked better among activists than ordinary voters.

• Traditional Democratic constituencies are beginning to resist.

• A democratic socialist just lost Wisconsin after polling suggested she would coast.

• Another won Michigan by less than a point and now faces an electorate considerably less ideological than the primary electorate that nominated him.

• A Democratic senator is publicly warning his own party about its left flank.

• The old media megaphone is weaker.

• The DNC is financially wounded.

• Republicans have extraordinary amounts of money.

• The House map has moved right.

And the voters have not spoken yet.

So perhaps we have been asking the wrong question.

Is DSA ascending?

Yes.

Is DSA approaching its high-water mark?

Possibly.

Those two things can happen simultaneously.

Indeed, political movements often become most dangerous to their opponents at approximately the moment they become visible enough for everybody else to understand what they actually want.

That may be where we are.

If Democrats perform brilliantly in November, the socialist left will have a powerful argument.

You warned that our politics could not travel.

They traveled.

Expect the ideological ratchet to turn again.

But if Democrats underperform—especially if highly progressive nominees lose races that more conventional Democrats might have won—the argument changes overnight.

The activists will have demonstrated that they can capture nominations.

The electorate will have demonstrated something else.

And suddenly every establishment Democrat who lost a primary, every donor who withheld a check, every Jewish liberal wondering where his party was going, every Black Democrat who preferred the traditional candidate, every Fetterman who finally said “enough” will possess something more useful than another opinion.

Evidence.

That is the choice.

Not socialism versus capitalism.

Not Trump versus AOC.

Something much more immediate.

Which Democratic Party can actually win?

Oil and water have been shaken inside the same bottle for years.

We already know they are different.

We already know what happens when somebody insists they mix.

Now comes the part we could not study in Parts I or II.

Put the bottle down.

Let the voters look at it.

And see what separates.

Leave a comment

THERE MAY BE NO MIDDLE

What Happens When Compromise Becomes Surrender

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 11, 2026

Editor’s Note

This essay examines the political logic of positions publicly advanced by DSA and allied activists. Terms such as “oppression,” “complicity,” “exploitation,” and “genocide” are used here to describe that movement’s own framing, not to endorse it. The purpose is to show how changing the moral description of an issue can change what positions are considered acceptable inside a political coalition.

Part I left us with a rather inconvenient discovery.

The Democratic Party is fond of describing itself as a big tent, which is an agreeable metaphor so long as one does not inquire too closely into where its occupants propose to go when they leave it.

Political coalitions have always contained quarrelsome people. Indeed, without quarrelsome people there would be little need for politics. One Democrat wants to spend $100 billion, another only $50 billion, and after the customary speeches, threats, television appearances and lunches nobody admits attending, they settle on $75 billion and announce that statesmanship has prevailed.

This is called compromise.

But some disagreements resist arithmetic.

Josh Gottheimer wants immigration enforcement reformed. The Democratic Socialists of America want ICE abolished.

Elissa Slotkin has drawn a distinction between offensive weapons for Israel and defensive systems such as Iron Dome. DSA wants American military assistance to Israel ended.

Chuck Schumer has spent much of his career defending an American commitment to Israeli security that he has called ironclad. DSA regards precisely that commitment as something to be dismantled.

And then there is the Senate, which DSA proposes to abolish.

Chuck Schumer, unless developments have escaped his attention, runs it.

One is tempted to suggest a compromise under which the Senate is abolished on alternate Tuesdays, but even Washington has not yet perfected that arrangement.

The problem is not that these people prefer different percentages.

They disagree about the continued existence of the thing being negotiated.

There is no especially useful midpoint between ICE and no ICE. There is no mathematical average between military assistance and none. One cannot abolish the Senate while keeping the nice parts — like the senators.

At some point compromise ceases to be arithmetic.

The question becomes:

What exactly is supposed to survive the compromise?

That is the question now working its way through the Democratic coalition.

REFORM AND ABOLITION

Consider immigration enforcement.

Gottheimer has hardly been an apologist for ICE. He has proposed training requirements, de-escalation standards, body cameras, constitutional safeguards and congressional oversight.

One may quarrel with the details, but his premise is unmistakable: immigration enforcement is a legitimate function of government, and the institution charged with carrying it out should therefore be made more professional, restrained and accountable.

The abolitionist begins somewhere else.

If ICE is not merely badly administered but inherently oppressive, reform is almost beside the point. Why improve the administration of an institution whose very existence is regarded as unjust?

The reformer says the institution is necessary but defective.

The abolitionist says its supposed necessity is the defect.

There is considerable political distance between those propositions, and no amount of cheerful discussion about the dimensions of the tent shortens it.

Israel presents the same structural problem.

Slotkin and Jon Ossoff have already moved left on weapons policy. Part I examined them precisely because they occupy the territory where ordinary compromise ought to work: restrictions on some offensive weapons while preserving assistance for Israeli defensive capability.

That position rests upon a distinction.

Israeli conduct may deserve restraint while Israel’s ability to defend itself remains a legitimate American interest.

DSA rejects the distinction.

Its endpoint is not fewer bombs, tighter conditions or additional humanitarian safeguards.

It is the termination of American military assistance.

At which point the argument is no longer about the thermostat.

It is about whether the furnace belongs in the house.

And this brings us, rather sooner than one might have expected, to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

THE AOC PROBLEM

If DSA were merely complaining that Chuck Schumer or Brad Schneider failed to meet its ideological standards, there would be nothing especially interesting about it.

One does not ordinarily expect Chuck Schumer to pass a socialist purity test.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is another matter.

AOC arrived in Washington by defeating a powerful establishment Democrat and quickly became the national symbol of the insurgent left — democratic socialist, Green New Deal champion, advocate of abolishing ICE and frequent antagonist of the old Democratic hierarchy. Even DSA publications celebrated that original insurgent identity.

One might reasonably have supposed she possessed sufficient progressive credentials to survive inspection.

Apparently not.

In 2024, DSA’s National Political Committee made its national endorsement of Ocasio-Cortez conditional. Among its requirements were that she publicly oppose all funding to Israel, including Iron Dome, support BDS, and oppose efforts it believed conflated anti-Zionism with antisemitism. DSA subsequently withdrew the endorsement and described some of her actions as a “deep betrayal.”

There is something almost exquisite about the episode.

For years Republicans had pointed to AOC as evidence of how far left the Democratic Party was traveling.

DSA examined the alleged radical and discovered a moderate.

But the joke conceals something much more consequential.

Political movements do not merely hold opinions.

They establish boundaries.

Once the boundary exists, politicians can be measured against it.

Acceptable or unacceptable.

Ally or disappointment.

Faithful or betrayal.

And eventually:

Who must move?

DSA did not simply disagree with AOC.

It established a standard, attached an endorsement to compliance with that standard, and withdrew the endorsement when its conditions were not met.

That is not merely philosophical disagreement.

That is enforcement.

And notice what was being enforced.

The dispute was no longer whether Netanyahu could be criticized, whether offensive weapons should be restricted, or whether Israel should face conditions on its conduct.

It included Iron Dome.

A defensive system.

Indeed, AOC herself had publicly joined a 2024 statement opposing additional offensive aid while explicitly supporting strengthening Iron Dome and other defensive systems.

The remaining argument had therefore become quite simple:

Some military assistance.

Or none.

DSA drew the line.

AOC stood on the wrong side of it.

And now we can see something larger.

THE PLAYBOOK

Here we need to be especially precise.

These are not our descriptions of ICE, Israel, capitalism or the Senate.

They are descriptions and premises employed by the ideological movement we are examining.

That distinction is essential because it reveals the mechanism.

Once a movement successfully changes the description of the thing — from flawed to oppressive, from controversial assistance to complicity, from unequal capitalism to exploitation — it also changes what counts as a morally respectable response.

Change the description, and you change the moral frame.

Change the moral frame, and you narrow the range of acceptable compromise.

That is the playbook.

It need not be written down as a set of instructions. It need not be coordinated in some room. It is more powerful than that because the sequence follows naturally from the premises.

First, redefine the issue.

Then moralize the definition.

Then narrow the range of acceptable responses.

Then measure politicians against the new range.

Finally, punish those who remain outside it.

Consider ICE.

If it is merely inefficient, reform it.

If it is abusive, restrain it.

If it is badly administered, replace the administrators.

But if the institution itself is defined as oppressive, reform becomes morally suspect.

Why improve oppression?

The same structure appears in the argument over Israel.

A Democrat who believes Israeli military conduct has become excessive can condition weapons, restrict particular transfers or demand humanitarian safeguards while still believing that the underlying U.S.-Israel relationship is legitimate.

But DSA describes U.S. support for Israel through the language of genocide and rejects exceptions even for Iron Dome; in 2025 it again criticized AOC for opposing an amendment that would have cut $500 million in Iron Dome funding, saying its arms-embargo position allowed “no exceptions.”

Again, that is DSA’s premise, not ours.

But once the premise is accepted, the available moral choices change.

Compromise no longer looks prudent.

It looks complicit.

Twenty percent complicity is not a particularly inspiring campaign platform.

The same mechanism extends elsewhere.

If capitalism merely produces excesses, regulate it.

If capitalism itself is exploitation, regulation perpetuates exploitation.

If the Senate is merely dysfunctional, reform it.

If the Senate itself is fundamentally illegitimate, reform rather conspicuously misses the point.

• The description changes first.

• Then the moral frame changes.

• Then the permissible response changes.

• And finally the politician must change.

• That is what makes this more than rhetoric.

It is political leverage.

Once the middle has been morally redefined, occupying it carries a cost.

And now return to AOC.

AOC MOVES

In 2024, she still publicly distinguished offensive military aid from systems such as Iron Dome.

DSA rejected the distinction.

In 2025, it publicly rebuked her again over Iron Dome.

Then, at a DSA forum in 2026, Ocasio-Cortez said she would oppose future military aid to Israel even when asked specifically about defensive capabilities. She subsequently confirmed that Israel should finance systems such as Iron Dome itself.

We should be precise.

We cannot demonstrate that DSA caused the change.

Politicians change their minds. Wars change facts. Constituencies change. Moral judgments change. Occasionally politicians may even examine an issue and arrive at a different conclusion, a possibility political science should probably preserve for completeness.

That does not prove causation.

It does, however, oblige us to notice that AOC moved further left as DSA’s influence within the Democratic coalition was becoming more consequential.

For our purposes, that is the more interesting fact.

The standard was real.

The enforcement was real.

The movement was real.

And even AOC was not exempt from it.

If an ideological movement is willing to find Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez insufficiently aligned, exactly how much room does its definition of the big tent ultimately leave for Brad Schneider?

Or Gottheimer?

Or Jacky Rosen?

Or Schumer?

These are not Republicans peering nervously through the tent flap.

They are Democrats who have spent careers inside it.

THE FLOOR MOVES

Political labels applied to the Left have an odd tendency to migrate.

Conservative labels, by comparison, seem remarkably stationary. A conservative of twenty years ago may be called many things today, but usually not because the definition of conservatism has traveled several exits down the highway.

On the Left, the floor moves — seemingly always in one direction.

Moderate.

Liberal.

Progressive.

Radical.

We imagine little marks painted permanently on the floor.

But they are not permanent.

Yesterday’s radical can become tomorrow’s moderate without changing a single opinion.

The movement simply travels past him.

A position begins at the edge. Then it becomes discussable. Then respectable. Then expected.

Eventually failure to adopt it becomes evidence of insufficient commitment.

At which point another position assumes its former place at the edge.

Call it the ideological ratchet.

AOC gives us an unusually clean view because she began as the insurgent.

Then the insurgent herself failed the insurgency’s test.

No order from headquarters was required. Nobody needed to send a memorandum instructing Democratic officeholders to move four degrees left before close of business Friday.

Standards do the work.

Endorsements do the work.

Activists do the work.

Primaries do the work.

Definitions of what constitutes a respectable progressive do the work.

Eventually politicians learn the price of standing still.

And what about another DSA star, Mayor Zohran Mamdani?

Well, he has, among other difficulties, a city to run, finite resources, a mobile tax base and the unpleasant discovery that arithmetic is not especially ideological.

Reality has begun negotiating with him directly.

But our question is not whether individual socialists are capable of negotiating.

Of course they are.

Our question is what happens to a political coalition when certain negotiations are defined as morally impermissible.

WHO MUST TOLERATE WHOM?

This is where the familiar big-tent argument begins to turn inside out.

For years the question has usually been posed in one direction:

Can establishment Democrats accommodate the socialist left?

Perhaps we have it backwards.

Can the socialist left indefinitely accommodate the establishment?

Can a movement that regards Zionism as part of the problem permanently share political power with Brad Schneider declaring, “I am a Zionist”?

Can activists who characterize American military assistance as complicity permanently tolerate Chuck Schumer calling America’s commitment to Israeli security ironclad?

Can abolitionists remain satisfied with Gottheimer’s insistence that immigration enforcement continue?

Can advocates of fundamental constitutional reconstruction coexist indefinitely with politicians whose careers have been spent operating within — and defending — the existing structure?

Perhaps they can.

American political parties have endured stranger marriages.

But a genuine big tent imposes an obligation rarely mentioned by those celebrating its capaciousness.

Tolerance must operate in both directions.

The establishment must tolerate the insurgents.

The insurgents must tolerate the establishment.

Otherwise the big tent is not a settlement.

It is a truce.

And truces have the inconvenient habit of lasting only until one side concludes that it no longer needs them.

THE SPLIT

That is why I believe DSA may eventually split the Democratic coalition.

Not necessarily by forming another party. American party labels are remarkably durable, and our electoral system is exceptionally hostile to third parties.

The more interesting split may happen while everybody continues calling himself a Democrat.

Political separation begins before registration changes.

A constituency loses influence.

A politician once considered acceptable becomes suspect.

An endorsement disappears.

Activists move to another candidate.

The primary electorate changes.

Positions that once enjoyed veto protection inside the coalition lose it.

Eventually one faction discovers that it remains inside the same party but no longer has much say in defining what the party means.

The stationery survives.

The coalition underneath it does not.

Part I already showed that several of the Democratic figures in our sample are moving. But it also established the distinction on which this trilogy depends:

Movement is not destination. We saw that in Part I of this series.

The question is what happens when movement is no longer enough.

MOVE. FIGHT. LOSE.

At that point the choices become increasingly simple.

Move.

Fight.

Lose.

Some will move.

AOC did.

Others will fight.

They will draw the line.

Defend the alliance the insurgents want ended.

Defend the institution the insurgents want abolished.

Defend the constitutional arrangements the insurgents want reconstructed.

Then organize around the refusal.

Recruit candidates. Contest primaries. Raise money. Win party committees.

Make the other side move instead.

That is what an actual ideological struggle inside a political party looks like.

And then there is the third possibility.

Lose.

Remain where you are.

Decline to move.

Fail to fight effectively.

And discover that the party has moved around you.

The endorsement disappears.

The activists choose somebody else.

The challenger arrives.

And eventually the politician receives that most concise of ideological memoranda:

the election result.

Part I established the contradiction.

These differences increasingly concern not merely how far Democrats should travel, but where the road ends.

Part II gives us the mechanism.

First the description changes.

Then the moral frame changes.

Then the range of acceptable compromise narrows.

Then the standard is enforced.

Then somebody has to move.

That sequence is what threatens the old Democratic coalition.

Not because democratic socialists have invented ideological stubbornness. History managed to produce an ample supply before DSA arrived.

The danger comes when one faction no longer regards the other faction’s position as merely mistaken.

It regards accommodation with that position as morally unacceptable.

At that point there may indeed be no middle.

The 50-yard line disappears.

The big tent begins to look less like a permanent home than temporary shelter.

And sooner or later somebody asks who gets to keep the tent.

We are no longer dealing entirely in theory.

The test has been administered.

AOC failed it.

The standard was enforced.

Then AOC moved.

Now elections have begun supplying answers of their own.

Someone has already lost.

Someone else has already taken his place.

That is where Part III begins.

THE CHOICE

The Future Has Already Started.

Share

Leave a comment

OIL AND WATER

The Democratic Coalition Has a Problem It Can No Longer Hide

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 10, 2026

Editor’s Note

The phrase that triggered this essay was simple:

“We are a big-tent party.”

At first, that sounds reasonable. Political parties contain factions. They argue. They compromise. They tolerate differences.

But then I noticed something else.

Whenever Democrats were pressed on the growing ideological distance inside their coalition, the same phrase kept appearing. Different politicians. Different constituencies. Same answer.

Big tent.

That is when I began to wonder whether the phrase was describing the coalition—or protecting it from closer inspection.

So I looked closer.

I placed the Democratic Socialists of America’s own stated program beside the public positions of prominent Democrats on Israel, immigration, the Senate, the presidency, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution itself.

And the problem became difficult to dismiss.

These are not always disagreements over tactics, timing, tone, or emphasis. In several major areas, they point toward incompatible political end-states.

That distinction matters.

A genuine big tent can contain people who disagree about how to reach roughly the same destination.

But what happens when the people inside the tent disagree about the destination itself?

One faction wants to reform existing institutions.

Another openly seeks to abolish, replace, or fundamentally reconstruct them.

One faction operates within the present constitutional order.

Another envisions a different one.

At that point, “big tent” is no longer an explanation. It is a way of avoiding the question.

That is the thread this essay pulls.

Because once the competing end-states are placed side by side, the usual coalition language—“healthy debate,” “differences of degree,” “room for everyone”—has to carry far more weight than it was designed to bear.

“Big tent” may describe who is standing together today.

It does not explain where they intend to go tomorrow.

And when the destinations are fundamentally different, “big tent” stops being an explanation.

It becomes camouflage.

Political parties are marriages of convenience.

They contain people who disagree about taxes, spending, wars, immigration, abortion, regulation, guns, schools, and nearly everything else worth arguing about.

Usually, they survive by splitting the difference.

One side wants $100 billion. The other wants $50 billion. They settle on $75 billion and hold a press conference.

But some differences don’t split.

Maintain ICE. Abolish ICE.

Aid Israel. End all aid.

Sanction Iran. End the sanctions.

Preserve the United States Senate. Abolish the United States Senate.

Where exactly is the compromise?

At some point, arithmetic gives way to chemistry.

Oil and water can occupy the same bottle.

They cannot become the same substance.

And that brings us to a peculiar experiment now underway inside the Democratic Party.

Take twelve prominent Jewish Democrats:

Chuck Schumer. Bernie Sanders. Adam Schiff. Jamie Raskin. Josh Gottheimer. Brad Schneider. Jacky Rosen. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Elissa Slotkin. Jon Ossoff. Becca Balint. Brad Sherman.

They don’t remotely agree with one another.

Good.

That’s why they’re useful.

Sanders is a democratic socialist. Balint has moved dramatically left on Gaza. Gottheimer and Schneider are outspoken Zionists. Slotkin and Ossoff occupy increasingly complicated territory in between.

Jewish identity doesn’t tell us what these people believe.

Their records do.

And Jewish Democrats make an unusually revealing test case. They have played a major role in Democratic political life for generations. Many have long public records on Israel, Iran, national security and the liberal constitutional order.

Now we have something equally useful on the other side: an unusually explicit 2026 program from the Democratic Socialists of America.

No psychoanalysis.

No ethnic assumptions.

No Republican translation.

They all left receipts.

Let’s read them.

Let DSA Testify

The DSA isn’t coy about where it wants to go.

Its current program describes capitalism as a system to be replaced and says complete victory requires “building a new society from the ground up.” It calls for a new constitution and a “democratic socialist republic.”

Then come the details.

DSA proposes:

• Israel: End all U.S. military and economic aid to Israel.

• Palestine: Recognize a free Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital and a Palestinian right of return.

• Iran: End American economic warfare and sanctions.

• American military power: Defund what it calls the U.S. “war machine” and close overseas military bases.

• Immigration: Abolish ICE, end detention and deportations, legalize migration, grant broad amnesty, and eliminate visa caps and quotas.

• Police and prisons: Move toward abolition of the police and prison system.

• The economy: Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries.

• The Electoral College: Abolish it.

• The Senate: Abolish it.

• The presidency and Supreme Court: Replace them with institutions chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

• The Constitution: Write a new one establishing a democratic socialist republic.

This isn’t Medicare for All with a little extra seasoning.

It’s a proposed redesign of the American political and economic system.

We didn’t write the program.

They did.

Now put that list beside the records of the Democrats who would have to live with it.

Chuck Schumer: The Man at the Intersection

Start at the top.

Chuck Schumer isn’t merely a Jewish Democrat. He has been one of the most powerful Democrats in America.

His criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu has become increasingly sharp. But criticism of an Israeli government is not the same thing as adopting DSA’s endpoint.

DSA wants American military and economic aid to Israel ended.

Schumer has spent his career inside a fundamentally different conception of the U.S.-Israel relationship. He has called America’s commitment to Israel’s security and defense “ironclad.”

Iran makes the difference clearer.

DSA wants economic warfare against Iran ended.

Schumer calls Iran a leading state sponsor of terrorism and insists it must never obtain a nuclear weapon.

This year he joined Tim Kaine and Adam Schiff in demanding that Congress reassert its constitutional war powers over Iran. But their resolution specifically preserved America’s ability to defend itself or Israel from Iranian attack.

That’s not DSA foreign policy.

It’s traditional Democratic internationalism arguing over who gets to authorize American power.

Then comes the almost comic collision.

DSA:

Abolish the Senate.

Schumer:

Senate Democratic leader.

Which one is supposed to move?

Sometimes analysis really does write itself.

Brad Schneider: Four Words Will Do

Brad Schneider makes the Israel comparison easier.

In February 2025, while rejecting Donald Trump’s proposal for an American takeover of Gaza, Schneider opened his statement with four words:

“I am a Zionist.”

He described the U.S.-Israel bond as unshakable and pledged to continue supporting and protecting the Jewish state, while also recognizing Palestinian rights and arguing for Israelis and Arabs to live together in peace.

DSA wants all American military and economic aid to Israel ended and embraces a fundamentally different Palestinian program.

This isn’t an argument over Netanyahu.

It isn’t an argument over whether a particular bomb shipment should be delayed.

They are different political destinations.

Schneider says Zionism.

DSA says something else.

How much political distance can exist inside one coalition before “coalition” stops describing it?

Josh Gottheimer: Reform It or Kill It?

Now change subjects.

ICE.

DSA’s position fits nicely into two words:

Abolish ICE.

Not improve it.

Not restrain it.

Not retrain it.

Abolish it.

Josh Gottheimer has plenty of complaints about ICE.

So he proposed the ICE Standards Act.

Training. De-escalation standards. Constitutional search-and-seizure instruction. Body cameras. Dashboard cameras. Professional standards. Congressional oversight.

In other words:

Reform ICE.

Which requires one rather inconvenient thing.

ICE.

The rhetoric can move sharply left while the endpoint remains somewhere else entirely.

Condemning an institution’s abuses is not the same as believing the institution should cease to exist.

Reform assumes something is worth saving.

Abolition doesn’t.

Jamie Raskin: The Constitutional Time Bomb

Jamie Raskin is interesting for another reason.

You might expect the collision to be Israel.

It may not be.

Raskin has built much of his national reputation around constitutional government, congressional authority, the courts, elections and the defense of American democratic institutions.

Now return to DSA.

Abolish the Senate.

Abolish the Electoral College.

Replace the president and Supreme Court with institutions chosen by and subordinate to Congress.

Draft a new constitution.

And while we’re at it:

Create a democratic socialist republic.

That’s not an argument over nine Supreme Court justices versus thirteen.

It’s not a filibuster fight.

It’s a different constitutional architecture.

And this may be the sleeper issue in the entire comparison.

Most Americans who know anything about DSA probably know it’s far to the left on Israel.

How many know it wants to abolish the Senate?

How many know it wants to replace the presidency and Supreme Court?

The Israel argument gets the headlines.

The constitutional argument tells you how large the disagreement really is.

Slotkin and Ossoff: Welcome to the Middle

Elissa Slotkin and Jon Ossoff may be more revealing than the easy cases because both have already moved left on Israeli weapons.

Slotkin voted this April to block specific offensive weapons transfers to Israel.

Significant.

Then read the next part.

She explicitly said she would continue supporting defensive systems such as Iron Dome.

Offensive weapons: reconsider.

Defensive weapons: continue.

DSA doesn’t stop there.

It wants the assistance ended.

Ossoff has drawn similar distinctions, supporting restrictions on some Israeli weapons while preserving American support for Israeli defensive capability.

Again:

Not unconditional support.

Not zero support.

A line.

This distinction gets lost constantly in the political noise surrounding Gaza.

Moving left isn’t the same as arriving at DSA.

Adam Schiff demonstrates the same thing.

He has become sharply critical of Netanyahu, Israeli conduct in Gaza and unauthorized American military action against Iran.

He also describes Iran as a malicious state sponsor of terrorism, says it must never possess a nuclear weapon, supports Israel’s right to defend itself against imminent Iranian threats and continues to affirm Israel’s right to exist in peace as a Jewish state.

That’s not confusion.

Schiff is moving on means while retaining much of the old Democratic conception of ends.

DSA is challenging the ends.

At what point does accommodation become abandonment?

Sanders and Balint: The Control Group

If this were really an argument about Jewish identity, Bernie Sanders would blow it up immediately.

Good.

That’s why he’s here.

Sanders has repeatedly tried to block Israeli weapons sales. This April, 40 Democratic senators joined him against one sale and 36 against another.

When he began these efforts, he had 11.

That’s movement.

Serious movement.

Sanders himself has called for ending U.S. military aid to Netanyahu’s government.

Becca Balint has traveled a remarkable distance as well.

In September 2025, she became the first Jewish member of Congress to publicly describe Israel’s campaign in Gaza as genocide.

So now our twelve begin to separate.

Not by religion. Not neatly by age or office. And certainly not as a Jewish bloc. They separate according to which old political commitments they are willing to surrender—and which ones they aren’t.

Some Jewish Democrats are moving toward positions once confined much closer to the socialist flank.

Others aren’t.

Some are moving on Gaza while holding their ground on Iran.

Some oppose particular weapons while preserving defensive aid.

Some want ICE restrained while insisting immigration enforcement continue.

Some remain openly Zionist.

That variation isn’t a problem with the thesis.

It is the thesis.

Jewish identity doesn’t determine the answer.

Political commitments do.

And we’re watching those commitments collide.

The Rest of the Board

The pattern doesn’t disappear when we widen the sample.

Jacky Rosen says her support for Israel having what it needs to defend itself from Iran and its proxies remains “ironclad.” She has backed integrated missile-defense cooperation among the United States, Israel and regional partners.

Brad Sherman called Israel’s 2025 attack on Iranian nuclear facilities “understandable and justified,” arguing that Israel could not wait until Iran possessed nuclear weapons ready for launch.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has described Iran as a malignant actor supporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons.

They can oppose particular wars. They can criticize Netanyahu. They can condition weapons. They can insist that Congress—not the president alone—decide when America goes to war.

But they still begin from a premise DSA increasingly rejects:

America has allies.

America has enemies.

America has security interests.

America sometimes has legitimate uses for military power.

DSA questions much more than how that power should be used.

It questions the architecture itself.

Three Collisions

Put the records together and we don’t find one disagreement.

We find three.

First: Israel.

Traditional Democrats can criticize Netanyahu, condition weapons and press for Palestinian statehood while still treating Israel’s survival and security as an American interest.

DSA’s endpoint is different.

End the aid.

That’s not another setting on the same dial.

Second: American power.

Schumer, Schiff, Rosen, Sherman, Slotkin and others argue over wars, authorization and limits while continuing to believe America has allies to defend, adversaries to deter and legitimate interests abroad.

DSA wants the American “war machine” defunded and overseas bases closed.

Different destination.

Third: the American system itself.

This may ultimately be the biggest collision.

The Democrats we’re examining have spent their careers operating within—and often claiming to defend—the Senate, presidency, judiciary, constitutional separation of powers and a predominantly private economy.

DSA proposes replacing major portions of that structure.

At that point, we’re no longer asking whether Democrats should move a little further left.

We’re asking what remains when they arrive.

Oil and Water

Something is already moving.

Bernie Sanders once stood much closer to the edge of his caucus on Israeli weapons.

This April, 40 Democratic senators joined him on one restriction.

Balint has moved.

Slotkin has moved.

Ossoff has moved.

Schiff has moved.

But movement is not destination.

For Schneider, the boundary may be Zionism.

For Rosen, the American-Israeli security relationship.

For Gottheimer, the continued legitimacy of immigration enforcement.

For Raskin, the constitutional order itself.

For Slotkin and Ossoff, the question may be how long the distinction between offensive and defensive aid remains politically sustainable.

And Sanders and Balint pose the question from the opposite direction:

How close to the socialist endpoint are they actually prepared to go?

For decades, these differences could coexist because nobody required a final answer.

What happens when somebody does?

We don’t have to answer that yet.

For now, we’ve established something simpler.

The positions are real.

The differences are real.

And increasingly, those differences concern not how far to travel—

but where the road ends.

Oil and water have traveled inside the same Democratic bottle for years.

They can coexist.

They can move together.

Shake the bottle hard enough and, for a while, they can even look like one substance.

But they aren’t.

And sooner or later, somebody is going to insist that they mix.

That’s where Part II begins.

Share

Leave a comment

Medicare For All and the Trade-Off Machine

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 5, 2026

I. Two Ways to Debate

There are two ways to debate public policy.

The first is the way we usually do it. Slogans, values, promises. Health care is a right. Health care is a privilege. Government is the solution. Government is the problem. Within minutes, everyone is talking past one another, nobody learns anything, and everyone walks away slightly more convinced they were right all along.

The second way begins with a blueprint. Before we build a machine, we ask how it is likely to behave once we turn it on.

That’s what engineers do. That’s what architects do. That’s what good economists do. They understand something that politicians—and the rest of us—consistently forget: systems produce outcomes because of the incentives embedded within them, not because of the speeches made on opening day.

This essay follows the second path.

We are not going to argue for or against Medicare for All. We are going to build the system on paper before anyone pours the concrete. We’ll examine the architecture, introduce actual human beings into the mechanism, and watch what happens when millions of ordinary people begin responding to the rules they actually face—not the rules we wish they faced.

The purpose isn’t to prove Medicare for All will succeed or fail. The purpose is to understand what kinds of pressures the design itself will generate. Once you understand the incentive structure, the future controversies stop looking like isolated crises and start looking like what they actually are: interacting consequences of a single design, playing out exactly as the blueprint predicted.

Physician shortages. Waiting lists. Administrative bloat. Cost control battles. Access disparities. These aren’t separate problems that might happen. They’re the same problem wearing different clothes.

We are no longer arguing about promises. We are arguing about the machine.

II. The Ideal Machine

Every proposal deserves to be judged by its strongest case, not its weakest. So before we introduce political friction, budgetary constraints, or institutional self-interest, let’s grant the advocates every reasonable assumption.

Assume Congress writes a thoughtful law. Assume the transition is orderly. Assume funding is adequate, administration is competent, and oversight is rigorous. Assume physicians cooperate, hospitals adapt, medical schools expand, and patients act responsibly.

In this best-case architecture, every citizen carries the same health card.

+--------------------------------------------------------------+

THE PROPOSED MODEL

+--------------------------------------------------------------+

• Universal financial coverage without job-lock

• Elimination of deductibles, copays, and surprise billing

• Single-payer administrative consolidation

• Centralized prescription drug price negotiation

• Equal financial access to preventive care

+--------------------------------------------------------------+

Families no longer fear medical bankruptcy. Businesses stop hemorrhaging operational energy on annual insurance negotiations. Doctors spend less time battling billing departments, and drug costs fall under centralized purchasing power.

This is the system as intended. It’s a machine designed for universal access, financial predictability, and administrative simplicity. On paper, it’s elegant.

Now comes the uncomfortable question: What happens when millions of ordinary human beings—not saints, not villains, just people responding to incentives—begin living inside it?

III. Human Nature Enters the Room

A system’s blueprint is static. Human behavior is not.

Once the machine opens, every participant begins responding to the internal rules rather than the opening day speeches. Here’s what that looks like, one group at a time:

Patients face zero point-of-service costs. The price signal that once made you think twice about that specialist visit for a mild rash? Gone. Seeking care for minor, self-limiting ailments becomes completely rational—the cost to you is zero, and the benefit might be peace of mind. Demand surges across the entire system, not because people became hypochondriacs, but because the architecture stopped asking them to weigh cost against benefit.

Physicians face fixed reimbursement rates and swelling patient volume. Some absorb the higher load. Others shorten appointment times to twelve minutes and call it a day. Others cap their panel sizes and close to new patients. The most entrepreneurial ones transition to cash-only concierge models. The ones near retirement? They retire. None of them are villains. They’re just responding to the math.

Hospitals stop competing for private-payer margins and start competing for government reimbursement formulas. Entire administrative departments retool to master statutory compliance and formula optimization. The game changes from “attract insured patients” to “maximize yield per claim code.” The billing department shrinks; the compliance department triples.

Medical students look at extended training timelines, six-figure debt loads, and capped provider compensation—and quietly shift their specialization preferences toward lower-stress fields or non-bargained specialties where the ceiling hasn’t been lowered. Dermatology over primary care. The pipeline adjusts, slowly but inexorably.

None of this requires bad actors. None of it requires corruption. It only requires ordinary people making rational decisions within the parameters established by the architecture. The machine doesn’t ask for your ideology. It just sets the incentives and waits.

IV. When the Machine Starts Writing Its Own Rules

Here’s where it gets interesting.

When millions of individual choices interact inside fixed rules, emergent phenomena appear—outcomes no designer explicitly planned, no legislator voted for, and no advocate predicted in the brochure.

The most immediate one is straightforward: when price no longer rations service, time takes its place.

[ Zero Point-of-Service Price ]

⏬

[ Increased Demand ]

⏬

[ Non-Price Rationing: Wait Times Expand ]

⏬

[ Unmet Demand for Speed ] ⏩ [ Secondary Cash Market Emerges ]

You cannot eliminate rationing. You can only change the currency. In a multi-payer system, money rations access. In a single-payer system, waiting rations access. The queue becomes the gatekeeper. And as queues grow, something predictable happens at the margins: a private layer re-emerges for those willing to pay out-of-pocket for speed. The two-tier system the design was supposed to eliminate reconstructs itself—not as a policy choice, but as an emergent response to constraint.

Then the regulatory cascade begins.

To manage expanding queues and rising aggregate costs, central administrators implement utilization management protocols. The state now defines what counts as “medically necessary.” Private insurer pre-authorizations are replaced with standardized state oversight—different logo on the denial letter, same frustration in the doctor’s office.

Every adjustment triggers another:

• Symptom: Wait times for specialist consultations stretch to months.

• First-order response: Increase state subsidies for medical residency slots.

• Second-order effect: Capital requirements shift toward academic medical centers, prompting hospital systems to lobby for specialized facility grants.

• Third-order effect: Bureaucratic compliance budgets grow to track grant allocations, altering operational overhead across every institution.

• Side effect nobody modeled: The innovation pipeline slows. When centralized price negotiation crushes margins on new drugs and devices, the incentive to develop them shrinks. The U.S. currently subsidizes global pharmaceutical R&D through high prices. Remove that subsidy and the world’s drug pipeline doesn’t politely maintain its current trajectory—it adjusts to the new math.

The system continuously adapts to the friction generated by its own rules. Each patch creates new friction. Each new friction demands another patch. The machine was supposed to be simple. It becomes anything but.

V. Choosing Your Failure Mode

No health-care system eliminates trade-offs. Each design simply chooses which pressures to accept and which to shift.

The choice is not between a flawed system and a friction-free alternative. It is a selection between two distinct sets of operational failure modes.

One system lets you go bankrupt but might get you into the MRI machine next week. The other system guarantees you won’t go bankrupt but might schedule that same MRI for next spring. Pick your poison.

This isn’t cynicism. It’s engineering. Every machine has a failure mode. The question is which one you prefer to live with—and whether the advocates are honest enough to tell you about it before you sign the contract.

VI. Reading the Machine

This dynamic is not unique to health care. It is the core lifecycle of every institutional design ever attempted.

[ Initial Policy Blueprint ]

⏬

[ Encounters Human Incentives ]

⏬

[ Emergence & Drift Occurs ] [ Regulatory Adaptation & Patching ]

⏬

[ New Friction ⏩ New Patch ⏩New Friction ⏩ ... ]

When a public school district produces worse outcomes despite increased funding, it’s not because the teachers stopped caring. When a municipal tax code drives businesses across county lines, it’s not because the city council wanted empty storefronts. When a housing policy meant to increase affordability instead makes construction more expensive, it’s not a conspiracy.

It’s the institutional machinery operating precisely according to its incentive structure. The machine doesn’t care about your intentions. It runs on incentives, and it will keep running on incentives long after you’ve left the room.

So here’s the skill this essay is trying to teach you: when you encounter a policy proposal, ignore the promises. Look at the blueprint. Ask what happens when ordinary people—lazy, clever, self-interested, short-sighted, occasionally noble, mostly just tired—start responding to the actual incentives the design creates.

Then ask what happens when the regulators try to fix what the first round of incentives broke.

Then ask what happens when the fixes create new incentives, and the new incentives create new problems, and the new problems require new fixes.

That’s not pessimism. That’s literacy.

Politicians write the brochure. Human nature writes the owner’s manual. And the owner’s manual is always, always longer.

Share

Leave a comment

Why Socialism Will Never Work Voluntarily

Human Nature Is the One Wall It Can Never Climb

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 4, 2026

Most arguments against socialism begin with economics.

Mine begins with a single word.

Voluntarily.

That word does almost all the work.

Suppose a society adopted socialism and every citizen remained completely free.

Free to work or not.

Free to invest elsewhere.

Free to move.

Free to start a business.

Free to leave the state.

Free to leave the country.

Would socialism remain stable?

I do not believe it would.

Not because people are evil.

Because people are human.

The Voluntary Test

Every political philosophy should be able to survive one simple test.

Remove the penalties.

Remove the police.

Remove the requirement to participate.

Then ask:

Would people still choose it?

If the answer is no, the problem is not with the people.

The problem is with the system.

🅱️ “If people have to be talked into staying, you’ve got a movement. If they have to be prevented from leaving, you’ve got a problem.”

Human Nature Does Not Negotiate

Human beings share certain characteristics that transcend culture, religion and politics.

We seek opportunity.

We avoid unnecessary hardship.

We compare ourselves with others.

We imitate success.

We protect our families.

We respond to incentives.

Milton Friedman spent much of his career explaining that people naturally seek lower friction. Water flows downhill. Capital flows toward higher returns. Workers move toward better opportunities. Families move toward safer neighborhoods and better schools.

There is another characteristic that is just as universal, though we rarely notice it because it seems so ordinary.

Human beings are not naturally lazy.

They are naturally economical.

If two paths lead to the same destination, most of us will eventually choose the one requiring less effort.

That is why we invented the wheel.

The washing machine.

The elevator.

The tractor.

The computer.

Civilization itself is largely the story of reducing unnecessary effort.

Now apply that same principle to economics.

If working hard and working less produce the same rewards, many people will gradually choose to work less.

Not because they have become immoral.

Not because they suddenly dislike work.

Because the incentives have changed.

Over time, behavior follows incentives just as surely as water follows gravity.

A society can encourage generosity.

It cannot indefinitely ask millions of ordinary people to ignore the incentives placed before them.

This is not capitalism.

This is anthropology.

Any political philosophy that depends upon people behaving differently than they naturally do begins the game at a disadvantage.

America Is the Worst Place to Attempt It

If someone wished to design the least suitable nation on Earth for a voluntary socialist experiment, it would look remarkably like the United States.

Americans move.

Businesses move.

Capital moves.

Retirees move.

Information moves even faster.

Unlike societies isolated by geography or censorship, Americans compare themselves constantly.

California is compared with Texas.

Illinois with Tennessee.

New York with Florida.

Fifty states become fifty competing laboratories.

When people see another state offering greater opportunity, lower taxes or a friendlier business climate, many simply pack the moving truck.

No passport required.

The Leaks Begin

Every redistributive system depends upon a productive base that continues producing.

But people are not stationary assets.

They leave.

An entrepreneur relocates.

A manufacturer builds the next factory elsewhere.

A physician retires early.

An investor shifts capital.

A young engineer accepts a better opportunity in another state.

Each decision is rational.

Collectively, they become a problem.

The tax base shrinks.

The remaining taxpayers shoulder a larger burden.

The incentives to leave become even stronger.

The cycle feeds itself.

🅱️ “Governments tax money because they think it stands still. It doesn’t. It owns a suitcase.”

Bob stares into space for a moment.

🅱️ “No… that’s not it.”

Another pause.

🅱️ “Capital doesn’t vote. It packs.”

Plugging the Leaks

When voluntary participation declines, governments rarely conclude that the underlying incentives should change.

Instead, they often try to reduce the leakage.

Higher taxes.

More regulations.

Capital restrictions.

Price controls.

Rent freezes.

Rules intended to discourage mobility or increase dependence.

Each policy is usually defended on its own merits.

Together, they have another effect.

They make leaving harder.

The more difficult it becomes to persuade people to remain, the greater the temptation to make departure more expensive.

The Forgotten Word

Most discussions of socialism revolve around equality.

I believe the more important word is fairness.

Not equality of outcomes.

Reciprocity.

Human beings are remarkably generous.

We help neighbors after floods.

We donate blood.

We volunteer.

We support churches, charities and community organizations.

We willingly help those who genuinely cannot help themselves.

But voluntary cooperation rests upon an unwritten rule.

Those who are able are expected to carry part of the load.

The moment enough people conclude that the burden is no longer being shared fairly, something changes.

Not first in the economy.

In the human heart.

Resentment replaces generosity.

The question changes from:

“How can I help?”

to:

“Why am I carrying him?”

That question has ended more communes than any economics textbook.

🅱️ “A commune usually ends about fifteen minutes after somebody discovers he’s doing all the dishes.”

Human Nature Always Wins

Socialism is often presented as a superior economic arrangement waiting to be implemented correctly.

I see it differently.

It is a continuous contest between political design and human nature.

Human nature seeks freedom.

Human nature seeks opportunity.

Human nature responds to incentives.

Human nature recognizes reciprocity.

Human nature possesses a powerful instinct for fairness.

Those instincts cannot be legislated away.

They cannot be shamed away.

They cannot be educated away.

At best, they can be suppressed.

For a while.

Eventually, they reappear because they are not political opinions.

They are human characteristics.

🅱️ “Human nature has outlived every five-year plan ever written.”

The Final Test

Political systems come and go.

Human nature remains.

That is why socialism can sometimes be imposed.

It can sometimes be enforced.

It can sometimes survive for years under increasing levels of control.

But a system that depends upon people ignoring their deepest instincts about freedom, opportunity and fairness cannot remain voluntary forever.

Sooner or later, it faces a choice.

Restore freedom…

or reduce it.

That is why I do not believe socialism will ever work voluntarily.

Not because human beings are selfish.

Because they are human.

Leave a comment

“We’re not here to study the study”: the RFK–Bash collision

Short version, with Bob holding the receipts.

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

August 3, 2026

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat down with Dana Bash for twenty-one minutes, and two Americas talked straight past each other. The HHS secretary who thinks the people who ran COVID are the problem, versus the anchor whose network amplified them. Neither gave ground. Neither pretended to. What makes the tape is not who “won” — it’s that both were talking at once, each convinced he or she was the one telling the truth. Here’s the collision, trimmed to the parts that matter, with Bob in the margins where the moment called for a raised eyebrow.

DANA BASH: You’ve been placing nearly all the blame for the COVID response squarely with Dr. Fauci. But of course, he worked for President Trump. Does President Trump also deserve some of the blame?

RFK: President Trump wanted to end lockdowns. I think the thing that did the most damage to our country was the lockdowns — 3.5 million businesses shut down with no due process, no just compensation. All of our churches closed, our schools closed, and our children are still paying the price. And yet we had the worst outcome of any country in the world. We have the highest death rate from COVID of any nation on earth.

DANA BASH: That’s not accurate. Public health experts say there is a combination of factors that went into that — higher rates of chronic illness, gaps in our health care system, and misinformation.

RFK: You just said what I said was inaccurate. What I said was accurate. We have the highest death rate from COVID of any nation. But you can argue about why we had that, but nobody can tell you that.

🅱️ Bob: there it is. Four minutes in, and the secretary’s central claim gets swatted — “that’s not accurate” — and he just stands there. Correct. The whole twenty-one minutes is in that one exchange: she swats, he holds. And the anchor of the network that amplified the experts is telling the guy who runs the country’s health to sit down. Who exactly is the authority here? Somebody ought to study the study of that.

DANA BASH: The lockdowns were done by governors. Largely because they were hearing from hospitals saying their ICUs were overrun and they needed some help.

RFK: That’s just not true. They were doing it because Anthony Fauci was telling them from the top, “You need to lock down.” There were ICUs that were empty all over the country, including in New York at the height.

🅱️ Bob: Empty ICUs. You remember what they did to people who said that in 2020. Now the man who runs the show says it like it’s a weather report. Nobody apologizes. Nobody’s fired. Nobody remembers.

DANA BASH: It is also factually true that the COVID vaccine worked and prevented deaths. There is data upon data upon data.

RFK: Can you show me one study …

DANA BASH: Yes, I can.

RFK: …that shows that children were protected by the COVID vaccine?

DANA BASH: I can tell you that there are more good than harm to children.

RFK: Can you show me one study that shows that?

DANA BASH: I can tell you that there have been studies that because of vaccine disinformation, there could have been 100,000 to 200,000 lives saved. But people didn’t get the vaccine.

RFK: You are saying nonsense. You are saying something that you cannot show me a single study that shows that.

DANA BASH: I am not saying nonsense.

RFK: Somebody told you.

DANA BASH: Excuse me.

RFK: Cite me the study. What study?

DANA BASH: You’re actually talking about studies that actually don’t exist. I want to talk about something.

RFK: Cite me the study that you’re talking about.

DANA BASH: This is not productive. I am not here to defend all of the practices.

RFK: You’re talking nonsense. You’re making assertions you can’t support. Then when I call you on them, you’re telling me I’m arguing with you.

🅱️ Bob: “i am not here to defend all of the practices.” there it is. The whole authority racket in one sentence, said out loud on television. Don’t ask for receipts — just trust us. Same line they ran from march 2020 onward, and it’s still the only one they’ve got.

DANA BASH: Okay, let me just say for the record that I am not saying the entire way the COVID reaction was accurate. It was a scary time and people made mistakes. Absolutely.

RFK: You were scaring people.

DANA BASH: Why are you saying that?

RFK: Because that was the job of CNN. Was to put the sirens up.

🅱️ Bob: A man just told the anchor, to her face: “That was the job of CNN — to scare people.” and for one full beat she had nothing. That’s the receipt. Hold it.

DANA BASH: Measles cases in the U.S. just reached a 35-year high — the second record-breaking year in a row. 93 percent of these cases are among the unvaccinated. The outbreak is happening on your watch. Do you accept some responsibility?

RFK: Absolutely not. This is an international outbreak. We’re doing better at handling it than any country in the world. Mexico has 15 times the amount of measles per capita we do. Canada has four times. England has two times. Did I cause those outbreaks? Did I cause 137,000 cases?

DANA BASH: You’re the most famous vaccine skeptic on the planet.

RFK: Anthony Fauci, in his diaries, answers the question about why we’re having a measles outbreak right now. The reason is the COVID lockdowns — people didn’t get their children vaccinated during that period. He says in his diaries, “More children are going to die from measles because of these lockdowns than COVID.” And that age group — the ones who should have gotten the MMR at 18 months and didn’t — they’re the ones being infected. We have stopped the outbreaks at record speed in South Carolina, in Texas, in Utah, in Virginia. Nobody else has been able to do that.

DANA BASH: Are you willing to say to parents who haven’t vaccinated their kids that they should — because it’s safe and it will save their children’s lives?

RFK: I’ll say parents should get their children vaccinated for measles. The vaccine is effective. It stops measles in about 97 percent of the cases. People should get vaccinated.

🅱️ Bob: And just like that, the heretic tells you to get the MMR. The machine doesn’t know what to do with a guy who’ll torch their whole narrative and still tell the kids to get vaccinated. That’s called being honest about the science — not being useful to the narrative.

DANA BASH: The Wall Street Journal reported that the president is pressuring you to conduct studies probing the link between vaccines and autism. Is that true?

RFK: He certainly does.

DANA BASH: There have been more than 40 studies involving 5.6 million people concluding there is no link between vaccines and autism.

RFK: The Institute of Medicine — the National Academy of Sciences, the ultimate arbiter — says none of the eight vaccines administered during the first six months of life have ever been studied for a relationship to autism. It found two studies on the DTaP vaccine that show it does cause autism, and one on the hepatitis B vaccine that suggests it does. The studies you’re referring to are all for one vaccine, MMR, or one ingredient, thimerosal.

RFK: Do you see your job as ending vaccine hesitancy, or do you see your job as telling the truth to the American people?

DANA BASH: I see my job as telling the truth. And the truth is that there is study after study after study. It’s one of the most studied things in science.

RFK: You’re repeating it like a parrot. I’ve actually read the science. You don’t want to hear or debate this.

DANA BASH: I’m not debating this with you.

RFK: Of course you are.

🅱️ Bob: he offers to debate it on camera, anytime. Answer: “i’m not debating this.” trust the experts. Don’t ask questions. The guy who wants to show you the science — him they’ll never debate.

RFK: All you know how to do is repeat things that people told you and say “trust the experts.” That’s what you did during COVID. Now we know Fauci, the expert, was lying about everything — about masks, about social distancing, about natural immunity, about transmission from the vaccine, about the source of COVID. He was lying, and you were punishing people for not trusting the experts. Now you’re rolling out the experts again to talk about something you have no personal knowledge of.

DANA BASH: I’m sorry this turned into a contentious conversation. And my job is to try to get the best information out there. And it does concern me when you come in and say things that — with people who have scientific backgrounds who have tried to talk to you as well. Thank you for coming in.

🅱️ Bob: Contentious. That’s what they call it when somebody holds up the receipts and won’t put them down. The interview stands on its own — the full exchange follows. But this was the part you needed to hear twice, with the raised eyebrows where the record earned them.

The Full Interview

RFK–CNN INTERVIEW (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with Dana Bash)
Source:

Transcript per The Singju Post, August 2, 2026 (authoritative).

DANA BASH: You have been placing nearly all the blame on the COVID pandemic and the way that the U.S. responded to it squarely with Dr. Fauci. But of course, he worked for President Trump. Does President Trump also deserve some of the blame?

RFK JR.: Well, President Trump, as you recall, wanted to end the lockdowns. I think the thing that did the most damage to our country was the lockdowns — lockdowns that shut down 3.5 million businesses in our country with no due process, no just compensation. All of our churches closed, our schools, and our children are still paying the price for that. And yet we had the worst outcome of any country in the world.

DANA BASH: How so?

RFK JR.: We have the highest death rate from COVID of any nation on Earth.

DANA BASH: Well, let me just say, because I’ve heard you say that before on the death rate from COVID, that’s not accurate because public health experts say that there is a combination of factors that went into that — higher rates of chronic illnesses, which I know you would agree with, gaps to our healthcare system, and misinformation about vaccines.

RFK JR.: You just said what I said was inaccurate. What I said was accurate. We had the highest death rate from COVID of any —

DANA BASH: There are now —

RFK JR.: There are other countries that had higher, but you can argue about why we had that. Nobody can tell you. I mean, we have, as you say, we have the highest chronic disease burden in the world. But Anthony Fauci was mismanaging the COVID pandemic and was doing it under the Biden administration. President Trump wanted to end the lockdowns. In fact, in Anthony Fauci’s diaries, he talks about how President Trump is calling him every day trying to get him to reopen the country.

DANA BASH: Yeah, well, the lockdowns were done by governors. I mean, certainly Anthony Fauci and the president had opinions, but the lockdowns were done by governors, and largely because they were hearing from hospitals saying that their ICUs were overrun and they needed some help while that was happening.

RFK JR.: But I want to — that’s just not true. What you’re saying is not true. No, they were doing it because Anthony Fauci was telling them from the top, “You need to lock down.” There were ICUs that were empty all over the country, including in New York at the height.

DANA BASH: I’m going to go back to what I asked you at the beginning, which is President Trump. And he was the guy in charge. And you tweeted back in 2024 that he let bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci shut down the entire country. Again, the president was in charge.

RFK JR.: The president was trying to reopen the country when he left. The country was kept closed for another year, almost a year and a half after that.

DANA BASH: Let’s talk about how to prevent the next pandemic, because there’s a lot of litigating and relitigating that I don’t think is really helpful to do with regard to COVID. And the question is about so-called gain-of-function, which for people who aren’t entirely clear about it, it is a highly risky research process that includes manipulating a virus to study how it behaves as it evolves. Now, what scientists say is that although it’s controversial, it’s necessary to prepare for the next pandemic, to get ahead of it, to figure out what these viruses can do. You want to end this gain-of-function research. Some scientists say, isn’t it better just to put better guardrails around it?

RFK JR.: People have been trying to put guardrails around it for generations and it hasn’t worked. And clearly, the COVID-19 pandemic and many other global pandemics that we have have come from gain-of-function research. The RSV epidemic that we have, that is the biggest killer of kids in this country today, came from these kind of experiments. Lyme disease almost certainly came from this kind of research. And the scientists who you say are experts, making the argument that this is necessary for pandemic response, cannot point to one instance in history where research that came out of this kind of experimentation has actually provided us something beneficial.

DANA BASH: So how do you prepare then? How do you prepare for the next pandemic? I mean, that’s literally part of your job now because experts think it’s going to happen within the next 10 years again.

RFK JR.: Yeah, I mean, I think we did virtually everything wrong the last time.

DANA BASH: So what about now?

RFK JR.: The principal thing that we need to do is we need to listen to what’s happening to doctors on the ground. There are 15 million frontline physicians around the world. They’re mainly now connected through the internet. We can tell on the front lines what’s working and what’s not. If we had listened to those doctors during the COVID pandemic, we would have saved potentially millions of lives. There were therapeutics out there that were working. There were doctors that were having no deaths from COVID and treating, in some cases, thousands of patients. And we weren’t listening to them. Instead, we were doing the opposite. We were shutting them down. And then, Dana, the other thing that I would say is that we need to protect our constitutional rights — that that is the primary obligation.

DANA BASH: What does that mean?

RFK JR.: Well, during COVID we completely dismantled our constitutional rights. We began censoring people in violation of the First Amendment.

DANA BASH: But you’re saying what not to do. I’m asking what to do. But I want to talk about —

RFK JR.: That’s something to do. That is the number one priority. We protect the Constitution. The Constitution was written —

DANA BASH: Well, but you’re talking about rights and I’m asking about a potential public health crisis that is coming. But I do want to — let’s —

RFK JR.: And one of the mistakes we made in the last time was suppressing those rights so people weren’t being heard. The doctors who were saying “you’re doing it wrong” were being marginalized and vilified.

DANA BASH: Yeah. And because — again, I really want to move on. But you were saying — yes, I do.

RFK JR.: Part of the problem.

DANA BASH: No, I wasn’t.

RFK JR.: I think it was absolute press malpractice. You weren’t allowing your —

DANA BASH: Mr. Secretary, your job —

RFK JR.: Your job is a fierce skepticism toward authority. And you weren’t doing that. You were beating up on people who were dissenting.

DANA BASH: No. Okay. Are you sure — you want to sit here and attack me, or do you want to have conversations about public health? I’m not attacking you. I’m asking questions about how to prevent the next pandemic. And I’ll tell you, that’s what I’m trying to do. But I also don’t want to use this interview to allow you to say things that aren’t entirely true. You’re talking about therapeutics. Fine. It is also factually true that the COVID vaccine worked. The COVID vaccine prevented deaths. There is data upon data upon data. Let’s talk about the measles, please, because this is something that is happening as we speak.

RFK JR.: The cases in the U.S. protected children.

DANA BASH: I think that what I have to talk to scientists and doctors about is —

RFK JR.: Can you show me one study?

DANA BASH: Yes, I can.

RFK JR.: That shows that children were protected by the COVID vaccine.

DANA BASH: I can tell you that there are more good than harm to children.

RFK JR.: Can you show me one study that shows that?

DANA BASH: I can tell you that when it comes to the vaccine, there have been studies that show that because of vaccine disinformation, there could have been 100,000 to 200,000 lives in the U.S. saved. But because people didn’t get the vaccine, that’s why. I’m not saying that it entirely —

RFK JR.: You are saying nonsense. You are saying something that you cannot show me a single study that shows that.

DANA BASH: I am not saying nonsense.

RFK JR.: You are talking what —

DANA BASH: Excuse me.

RFK JR.: Somebody told you.

DANA BASH: Excuse me.

RFK JR.: Cite me the study. What study?

DANA BASH: No, what studies are you talking about? You’re actually talking about studies that actually don’t exist. I want to talk about —

RFK JR.: Cite me the study that you’re talking about.

DANA BASH: I am not here to defend —

RFK JR.: You say you see the studies, you tell me cite me the study.

DANA BASH: This is not productive. I am not here to defend all of the practices.

RFK JR.: You’re talking nonsense. You’re making assertions you can’t support. And then when I call you on them, you’re telling me I’m arguing with you.

DANA BASH: Okay, do you want to talk about assertions that you can’t support? I’ll get there in a second. Let me just say for the record that I am not saying that the entire way that the COVID reaction was accurate. It was a scary time and people made mistakes. Absolutely.

RFK JR.: You were scaring people.

DANA BASH: Why are you saying that?

RFK JR.: Because that was the job of CNN. Was to put the sirens up about how many people are —

DANA BASH: We were trying to be — we were listening to the leaders in this country, including the president, who had a daily press conference explaining what was going on and trying to listen.

RFK JR.: Were you listening?

DANA BASH: I want to talk about measles, actually. Measles cases in the U.S. just reached a 35-year high, the second record-breaking year in a row. 93% of these cases are among the unvaccinated. The outbreak is happening on your watch. And even before becoming HHS Secretary, for years, you have been one of the leading voices questioning the efficacy of vaccines. Do you accept some responsibility for this measles outbreak?

RFK JR.: Absolutely not. First of all, this is an international outbreak — and we’re doing better at handling it than any country in the world. Mexico has 15 times the amount of measles per capita that we have. Canada has 4 times the amount of measles. England has 2 times the amount of measles. Did I cause those measles outbreaks?

DANA BASH: You’re the most famous —

RFK JR.: Did I cause 137,000 cases?

DANA BASH: You’re the most famous vaccine skeptic on the planet.

RFK JR.: Let me tell you, because actually Anthony Fauci in his diaries answers the question about why we’re having a measles outbreak right now. The reason we’re having a measles outbreak is because of the COVID lockdowns — because children during that period did not get vaccinated. And in his diaries, he says this is going to cause massive outbreaks of measles and more children — he says this — are going to die. Let me finish, because you could accuse me of something. Now let me —

DANA BASH: No, I didn’t. I asked you a question.

RFK JR.: Yeah, let me give you the answer. He says in his diaries more children are going to die from measles because of these lockdowns that COVID. So if you want to know, in that age group that should have got the MMR when they were 18 months and didn’t get it, they’re the ones being infected. The people in this country — and we have stopped the outbreaks at record speed in South Carolina and Texas and Utah and Virginia. We’ve done better than any country in the world. I dispatched immediately the epidemic intelligence services to those states. I got on the phone with the governor and we stopped them in their tracks. Nobody else has been able to do that.

DANA BASH: You have a bully pulpit.

RFK JR.: Let me tell you just one last thing.

DANA BASH: Go ahead.

RFK JR.: The communities that are suffering from measles are almost all religious communities that just don’t vaccinate. The Mennonites have not vaccinated since 1796, since Edward Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine. It’s hard to blame that. I mean, as much as you want to blame —

DANA BASH: No, I don’t want to blame you. I’m asking you because you have a very powerful voice on these issues for people who are skeptical. In fact, let me finish.

RFK JR.: Let me finish. I’ve never questioned the efficacy of the MMR vaccine. Okay, let me finish. Of course.

DANA BASH: What I want you to do is please use your bully pulpit to right now, as we’re getting close to back to school, say — are you willing to say to parents who have not vaccinated their kids that they should vaccinate their kids for measles because it is safe and it will help save their children’s lives?

RFK JR.: I, we tell people on my websites, my public —

DANA BASH: Right now, look into the camera —

RFK JR.: that parents should get their children vaccinated for measles. A measles vaccine is effective. It stops measles in about 97% of the cases. People should get vaccinated.

DANA BASH: Can I ask you, the Wall Street Journal reported that the president is pressuring you to conduct studies probing the link between vaccines and autism. Is that true?

RFK JR.: Did you say probing the link?

DANA BASH: That what — I’m just quoting the Wall Street Journal, that the president wants you to go further to probe the link between autism and vaccines?

RFK JR.: He certainly does.

DANA BASH: Okay. Now, have you talked to him about medical research that have studied this for 25 years and found no link between autism and vaccines? And just this is my question here because I don’t want to litigate that. My question is, why not? Because you are HHS Secretary now. Why not study what could cause autism, which scientists do believe starts with fetal brain development? Why not do some studies on whether there’s an environmental exposure that could be causing it?

RFK JR.: Well, let me say this first. We’re doing all those things. They’ve done a lot of that. And that’s one of the ways that we found Tylenol. There’s 73 studies out there and linked Tylenol exposure to later pregnancy and during the perinatal period to autism. But you are wrong when you say that this issue has been studied. It hasn’t. So let me tell you what the Institute of Medicine says — which is the National Academy of Sciences, which is the ultimate referee on vaccine safety and which does not have an interest in this debate. It says that none of the 8 vaccines that are administered during the first 6 months of life have ever been studied for relationship to autism. So what we found —

DANA BASH: There have been more than 40 studies involving 5.6 million people to conclude there is no link between vaccines and autism. This is the head of the Committee of Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RFK JR.: It found 2 studies, one on the DTP vaccine that showed that it does cause autism, and one on the hepatitis B vaccine that again suggests that it does cause autism. The Institute of Medicine dismissed those two studies because they were based on CDC’s database. The studies that you’re referring to are all for one vaccine, the MMR vaccine, or one ingredient, thimerosal.

DANA BASH: So you are using — you are actually looking at — you’re starting new studies to try to link autism, but you’re also —

RFK JR.: I’m not trying to link autism to anything. I’m trying to find out why has autism gone up so much?

DANA BASH: Are you also trying to find out how it interacts with people’s DNA, what predisposed it to have an autistic child? Are you doing both?

RFK JR.: Yeah, but Dana, you probably don’t understand this because you’re not a scientist, but you’re not either. Genes don’t cause —

DANA BASH: I understand genes provide a vulnerability. A gene provides environmental — that’s that’s what I’m asking. Are you studying the environmental exposure?

RFK JR.: The environmental exposures, but your statement — you have been fooled. Your statement that this has been studied is not true. It’s categorically not true. It is considered —

DANA BASH: It is considered — considered by who? By every scientist who has studied this.

RFK JR.: That is not true. I can give you hundreds of scientists who have looked at this.

DANA BASH: Do you understand why people are not getting measles vaccines? Because they’re hearing you say that it could cause —

RFK JR.: You’re trying to change the subject.

DANA BASH: I’m not. It’s very much related.

RFK JR.: Show me one of the studies that’s been done on the first 8 vaccines during the first 6 months of life. You will not find them. The National Academy of Sciences —

DANA BASH: You’re not —

RFK JR.: National Academy of Sciences. What greater authority?

DANA BASH: Do you understand why people are not getting —

RFK JR.: Let me finish.

DANA BASH: Okay.

RFK JR.: Let me ask you something. Do you see your job as ending vaccine hesitancy, or do you see your job as telling the truth to the American people?

DANA BASH: I see my job as telling the truth. And the truth is that there is study after study after study. It’s one of the most studied things out there in science.

RFK JR.: You’re repeating it like a parrot. I’ve actually read the science. You don’t want to hear and debate this.

DANA BASH: I’m not debating this with you.

RFK JR.: Of course you are.

DANA BASH: No, because I’m not —

RFK JR.: All you know how to do is repeat things that people told you and say “trust the experts.” That’s what you did during COVID. Now we know that Anthony Fauci, who was the expert, was lying about everything — about masks, about social distancing, about natural immunity, about the transmission from the vaccine, about the source of COVID. He was lying and you were punishing people for not trusting the experts. And now you’re rolling out the experts again to talk about something that you have no personal knowledge of.

DANA BASH: Okay. Well, guess what? That is my job, to talk to people.

RFK JR.: Your job is to —

DANA BASH: Am I allowed to talk to the American public? Yes. And my job is to get as much information as I can. And what we were doing — what we were doing —

RFK JR.: Skepticism —

DANA BASH: What we were doing in COVID and still with regard to these vaccines is getting the best information, the best science that we can, and putting it out there. And sir, what you are doing is causing information to be out there that is not accurate.

RFK JR.: Who is lying to you?

DANA BASH: National Academy of Sciences, which you just cited in November, said “we support the statement that the vaccines do not cause some autism.” This is the National Academy of Sciences that you just talked about.

RFK JR.: Look at the National Academy of Sciences’ most recent report.

DANA BASH: Okay. And you’ll see — I want to ask you one other question because it’s something that really did help Donald Trump get elected, and that is the MAHA movement and specifically the question of processed foods. And the fact that people want to feel that their food is safe. My understanding is that you are pushing for reforms on food safety and ultra-processed foods that have been slowed, in some cases blocked, by people in the administration who are working on behalf of the industry. Is that true?

RFK JR.: No, that is not true.

DANA BASH: So you feel that you’ll be able to get these reforms done without any problems?

RFK JR.: I think the 2 big reforms that you’re probably talking about is ultra-processed food definition.

DANA BASH: Exactly.

RFK JR.: And the GRAS standards.

DANA BASH: Yes.

RFK JR.: They’ve both gone through extensive interagency process. I’m very confident that we will get them both out there within probably a month.

DANA BASH: Well, I’m sorry that this — and that’s good news for people who are very — moms, and I’m one of them, who are very worried about making sure that our kids eat food and we eat food that is healthy. I’m sorry that this turned into a very contentious conversation. And my job is to try to get the best information out there. And it does concern me when you come in and say things that have — I take what you’re saying have been — people who have scientific backgrounds, and who I know have tried to talk to you as well. Thank you for coming in.

Leave a comment

Share

Over the Line

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

July 31, 2026

Growing up in the 1950s and ’60s, we played three sports.

We did not schedule them. We did not register for them. We did not wait for adults to organize them.

We found whoever was available, counted heads and invented a competition.

Basketball was the easiest.

Two boys could play one-on-one or H-O-R-S-E. Four became two-on-two. Six became three-on-three. The game simply expanded as more players arrived. If ten showed up, the only real question was whether we had enough ambition to play full-court.

Football required a little more imagination.

When we were young, we played tackle football on somebody’s front lawn. No helmets. No pads. No yard markers. No real sidelines, either. You were not out of bounds until you fell into the street.

Small trees were part of the field.

There was lots of tackling, very little blocking, and an astonishing number of improvised passes and laterals. Sometimes it was difficult to remember who was on which team.

But we always had a huddle.

That was where somebody scratched a play into the all-but-destroyed lawn.

“You go long.”

“You cut behind the tree.”

“If they rush me, I’ll pitch it to you.”

By our early teens, the game moved to the park and became touch football. The field opened up, the passing game took over, and I learned how to become a throwin’ quarterback. Teams might have two, three, four or five players on a side. As with basketball, the game adjusted itself to whoever happened to be there.

Then the Parks Department began improving the park.

The open grass gave way to tennis courts, picnic tables and kiddie jungle gyms.

Progress.

Baseball was the difficult one.

Basketball could be reduced to two players. Football could be played with four. But baseball resisted reduction.

The real game required too much equipment and too many people.

You needed a backstop. You needed a catcher. If the pitcher could really bring it—and I was one of those—the catcher needed proper equipment. You needed someone to call balls and strikes. You needed batting helmets. You needed enough fielders so every decent hit did not roll halfway to the next neighborhood.

Without those things, you could imitate baseball, but you could not really play it.

So we found another way.

We played Over the Line.

Over the Line preserved the most demanding parts of baseball and discarded nearly everything that slowed it down.

No catcher.

No umpire.

No baserunning.

No tags.

No force plays.

No waiting for nine boys to appear.

The game could be played with two players on each side, although three or four made it better. We usually played on a practice baseball diamond. The pitcher used the mound. The batter stood at home plate. The opposing players spread out in a designated section beyond an agreed line.

The hitting area might run between two bases, or it might be narrower. With more fielders, we could widen it. With fewer, we tightened it.

The field adjusted itself to the number of boys available.

The pitcher was on the batter’s team.

That was one of the most important features of the game.

He was not trying to strike the batter out. He was trying to give his teammate the right ball to hit.

That did not make pitching unimportant. It made control more important than power.

A poor pitcher could ruin the game. A wild pitch wasted everybody’s time. The pitcher had to place the ball where the hitter could make clean contact and direct it toward the part of the field being used.

We alternated sides of the diamond.

One inning might require hitting toward left field. The next might be played toward right. That prevented a hitter from simply pulling every ball in the direction that felt most natural.

When the batter had to hit to the opposite field, his pitcher placed the ball on the outside of the plate. That allowed him to stay with the pitch and drive it naturally the other way. When the game shifted to the pull side, the pitcher could work farther inside.

The pitcher and hitter operated as a pair against the defense.

The pitcher created the opportunity.

The batter still had to do something with it.

He had to put the bat on the ball.

He had to strike it cleanly enough to get it off the ground.

He had to clear the line.

He had to keep the ball inside the agreed boundaries.

And he had to place it where the opposing fielders could not get to it.

That was much harder than simply swinging as hard as possible.

A ground ball did no good because it failed to clear the line. A towering fly ball gave the fielders too much time to get underneath it. A hard foul ball was still a foul ball.

The ideal hit was usually a line drive—cleanly struck, rising over the line and directed into a gap.

Power mattered, but only when controlled.

A strong hitter could drive the ball beyond everyone. But raw strength without placement produced a great deal of noise and not many runs. The better hitter learned to go with the pitch, disguise his intention and hit the ball where the defense was not.

That required more than one kind of swing.

You had to learn to pull the ball.

You had to learn to hit to the opposite field.

You had to understand how pitch location affected the direction of the hit.

You had to keep your hands back, contact the ball cleanly and control the path of the bat.

In ordinary baseball, a batter could sometimes survive a poor swing because he was fast enough to beat out a ground ball. There was no such escape in Over the Line.

The ball had to be struck properly.

Fielding was equally important.

With only two, three or four defenders, every player had ground to cover. You had to be quick, flexible and alert. You had to judge the ball immediately and move before it reached its highest point.

There was no room for daydreaming.

Fielders adjusted constantly. They could play shallow or deep. They could shade toward a batter’s natural side. They could leave what appeared to be an inviting opening and then close it the moment the pitch arrived.

The batter could fake the fielders as well.

He might glance toward one side, set his body as though he intended to pull the ball, and then punch it the other way. The fielders watched his feet, his shoulders and the angle of the bat. The hitter watched them creeping into position.

It became a small contest of deception played inside the larger contest of hitting and catching.

With only two fielders, there were large gaps but a narrower hitting lane. With three or four, the field could be widened and the defensive strategy became more sophisticated. Players could shift, overlap coverage or tempt the hitter into trying for a gap that was not quite as open as it appeared.

The essential action never stopped.

Pitch.

Swing.

Catch it—or don’t.

Throw the ball back.

Do it again.

There was almost no wasted time.

There was also very little opportunity to cheat.

The ball either crossed the line or it did not.

It landed within the boundaries or outside them.

It was caught or it was not.

There were no phantom tags, arguments over whether a runner had left early, or debates about whether someone had beaten a throw to first base. Almost everything that mattered happened in plain view.

The game was honest because it was simple.

It was also remarkably complete.

It rewarded the pitcher who could place the ball exactly where his teammate needed it.

It rewarded the hitter who could make contact, control the bat and drive the ball to either side of the field.

It rewarded the fielder who could read a swing, react quickly and make a difficult catch.

It rewarded power, but only when power was joined to judgment.

And it rewarded teamwork in an unusual way. The pitcher and hitter had to understand one another. The fielders had to divide the available space. Everyone was involved in nearly every pitch.

There were no players standing far away in right field hoping something might eventually happen.

Something was always happening.

The rules were not handed down by a governing body. We adjusted them to the field, the number of players and the daylight remaining.

Too many easy hits?

Move the line back.

Too many fielders?

Widen the boundaries.

Only four boys showed up?

Two on a side.

Six or eight?

Even better.

Nobody needed to call a meeting.

The purpose of the rules was to make the game work.

That was how we approached all three sports. We did not begin by asking whether we had enough players, enough equipment or an official field.

We began with whoever was standing there.

Then we figured out what game could be played.

But Over the Line was something more than an improvised substitute for baseball.

In some ways, it was a better teaching game.

It concentrated baseball into its most essential skills: control, contact, placement, anticipation and fielding.

A pitcher who relied only on speed had to learn accuracy.

A batter who swung wildly had to learn discipline.

A pull hitter had to learn the opposite field.

A slow fielder had to learn anticipation.

A powerful player had to learn that strength without control was often useless.

Nobody explained these lessons to us. The game did that.

We were not being coached. We were not performing drills. We were trying to beat the boys standing across from us.

That was enough.

Perhaps that is what was different about childhood then.

We did not wait for an adult to provide the completed experience.

We built it out of what we had.

A ball.

A bat.

A practice field.

Four boys, or six, or eight.

The full game of baseball may have been impossible, but that did not mean there was nothing to play.

We kept the best parts.

Then we made our own game.

Share

Leave a comment

Fauci Takes the Fifth

The Man Who Had an Answer for Everything Suddenly Had Nothing to Say

By Jim Reynolds | Reynolds.com
July 29, 2026

Anthony Fauci returned to Capitol Hill Wednesday under subpoena.

This time, the man who spent the pandemic explaining nearly everything to the American people explained almost nothing.

Fauci appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, now chaired by Sen. Rand Paul, for a hearing examining the origins of COVID-19, federally funded research in Wuhan and the government’s pandemic response.

The confrontation followed Paul’s release of more than 1,000 pages from Fauci’s pandemic-era journals and records. Paul maintains that Fauci’s private writings reveal uncertainties and concerns that were often missing from his confident public pronouncements.

Fauci began with a résumé.

He reminded the committee of his 54 years in government, his 38 years as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and his many previous appearances before Congress.

Then he attacked the chairman.

Fauci accused Paul of conducting a prolonged campaign of slander and of being obsessed with putting him “behind bars.” He argued that the hearing had been designed not to discover the truth, but to lure him into a statement that could later be prosecuted as perjury.

Then, on the advice of counsel, he invoked the Fifth Amendment.

And kept invoking it.

For roughly three hours, Fauci refused to answer more than 100 questions. He would not discuss the laboratory-leak theory, gain-of-function research, NIH funding connected to Wuhan, deleted emails, federal records, social distancing, asymptomatic transmission or the reasoning behind some of the most consequential public-health directives in modern American history.

🅱️ Bob: “The man who told 330 million Americans what to do suddenly needed a lawyer to tell him what to say.”

Republican senators eventually began asking questions so simple that no reasonable person could imagine an incriminating answer: the color of his tie, a folder or the carpet.

Fauci still took the Fifth.

His legal strategy was understandable. Once a witness invokes the privilege, answering harmless questions while refusing difficult ones can allow opponents to argue that the privilege has been selectively waived.

But what makes sense in a lawyer’s office can look very different on television.

🅱️ Bob: “When the color of the carpet becomes legally dangerous, you may have wandered into the wrong hearing.”

For years, Fauci spoke with immense authority. He corrected presidents, lectured senators, instructed citizens and wrapped disputed policies in the mantle of science.

His recommendations helped shape school closures, business restrictions, masking rules and vaccination mandates that disrupted millions of lives.

Americans were repeatedly told to trust him.

On Wednesday, Congress asked him to explain himself.

He declined.

The hearing became even more combustible when Fauci’s attorney repeatedly attempted to intervene. Paul warned him, then ordered security to escort him from the room. Paul also announced that the committee would consider contempt proceedings.

Democrats called the hearing partisan theater and a wasteful relitigation of the pandemic. Fauci’s defenders noted that invoking the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional right, not an admission of guilt.

More than 150 scientists signed a letter defending him and arguing that Republicans had produced no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

🅱️ Bob: “We already know that 51 former intelligence officials got the laptop wrong. Why not try 150 scientists?”

All of that is legally relevant.

None of it repairs the optics.

The Fifth Amendment exists for good reason. Innocent people may invoke it when facing a hostile prosecutor, ambiguous questions or the possibility that an inaccurate recollection will be characterized as a lie.

But Fauci was not an obscure citizen caught in an unfamiliar proceeding.

He was one of the most powerful and publicly visible officials of the pandemic. He helped determine what Americans could do, where they could go, whether their children attended school and whether they could keep their jobs.

That level of power carries an obligation to account for its use.

🅱️ Bob: “Apparently, accountability is one of those things that works better from six feet away.”

Wednesday’s hearing produced no confession.

It produced no new substantive testimony at all.

It produced something politically more damaging: three hours of silence from a man who once seemed incapable of it.

Fauci may believe he protected himself legally.

He did not protect his legacy.

Share

Leave a comment

The House Divided

The Democratic Party Is Postponing a Reckoning It Can No Longer Avoid

We’re Gonna Need a Bigger Headstone

By Jim Reynolds | Reynolds.com
July 27, 2026

The Democratic Party may be approaching one of those political moments that appears gradual—until suddenly it is not.

The immediate question is whether Democrats will suffer historic losses in the 2026 midterm elections.

They may.

But that is not the larger story.

The larger story is that the Democratic Party is becoming a house divided against itself, and its leaders are increasingly afraid to acknowledge the division in public.

One faction still presents itself as the familiar center-left Democratic Party: regulated capitalism, traditional alliances, organized labor, civil rights, government programs and incremental reform.

The other faction believes the existing economic and political order is fundamentally illegitimate and must be replaced.

That is not a disagreement over the size of a child tax credit.

It is a disagreement over the country itself.

The Democratic Socialists of America openly calls for placing the largest corporations under public ownership and democratic control. Its program advocates replacing major features of the existing constitutional system with a new democratic constitution and a single federal legislature based on proportional representation. It describes capitalism not as a system requiring reform, but as the central adversary in a broader struggle for socialism. (DSA Program⁠)

Most Democratic senators do not openly endorse that program.

Most Democratic members of the House would not run on it in a competitive district.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer does not call himself a socialist. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries does not campaign for the public ownership of America’s largest corporations. Neither man presents the DSA program as the national Democratic platform. (U.S. Senate⁠)

They understand that it would be politically poisonous throughout much of the country.

Yet they are unwilling to confront it directly.

That is the hinge.

The Elephant in the Room

The DSA is the elephant in the Democratic room.

It is influential enough to frighten Democratic incumbents, organize primary challenges, supply campaign workers and dominate political discussion in some of America’s largest cities.

But it is not popular enough for Democratic leaders to embrace openly.

The establishment wants the activists, the energy, the urban turnout and the organizational machinery.

It does not want the label.

That creates a revealing arrangement.

The DSA participates in Democratic primaries while openly declaring that ordinary Democratic liberalism is inadequate. Its strategists speak of building organizations capable of moving or ultimately overcoming the existing labor-liberal Democratic establishment. (Socialist Forum⁠)

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders continue telling the broader country that the party remains practical, moderate and familiar.

Both stories cannot remain true indefinitely.

One faction wants to manage American capitalism.

The other wants to replace it.

One faction wants to reassure Jewish voters, police officers, private-sector workers, suburban families and small-business owners.

The other increasingly views several of those constituencies—and the institutions they represent—as impediments to ideological transformation.

One faction presents the Democratic Party as a guardian of existing American institutions.

The other describes those same institutions as instruments of exploitation, oppression and capitalist power.

These are not merely different priorities.

They are rival political projects occupying the same organization.

Bob:🅱️ “When leaders refuse to draw a line, the loudest faction eventually draws it for them.”

Why Silence Matters

Political parties can survive disagreement.

They cannot indefinitely survive denial.

The intelligent time to confront a serious internal problem is when it is still small. At that stage, leaders can establish boundaries, reconcile factions and decide what the organization actually stands for.

Recognizing a problem early usually permits an orderly repair.

Recognizing it late means attempting to repair something that has been allowed to crack, spread and harden.

The Democratic Party is well beyond the early-recognition stage.

Its leaders have spent years treating fundamental contradictions as temporary messaging problems.

Moderation is presented to general-election voters.

Radicalism is tolerated in protected urban districts.

Traditional constituencies are reassured.

Activists are promised transformation.

Everyone is permitted to hear a different Democratic message.

That postpones the pain.

It does not remove it.

Bob:🅱️ “You can postpone a civil war inside a party. You cannot cancel it.”

Every year of avoidance makes the eventual choice more destructive. More officeholders become invested in the activist program. More moderates leave or become silent. More Democratic incumbents fear primary challenges. More leaders discover that they can no longer criticize ideas they privately know are nationally unpopular.

A problem that might once have been settled through internal debate is approaching the catastrophic stage.

The party is not merely arguing about tax rates.

Its factions disagree about capitalism, policing, immigration enforcement, Israel, race, constitutional restraints, national sovereignty and whether existing American institutions deserve preservation at all.

Eventually, the Democrats must answer a simple question:

What kind of party are they?

They cannot answer because the answer would force the confrontation they have spent years avoiding.

New York Is Not America

The success of democratic socialism in New York City has encouraged the belief that the movement represents the future of the Democratic Party.

It may represent the future of certain Democratic primaries.

That is not the same thing.

AOC’s district is not America.

New York City is not America.

Neither are the handful of dense, culturally captured urban areas in which universities, nonprofit organizations, public-sector employment, activist groups and one-party government continuously reinforce one another.

These are protected political ecosystems.

Candidates can advance positions that would end campaigns almost anywhere else—and then win by overwhelming margins.

A socialist victory in Queens, Brooklyn or the Bronx demonstrates that socialism can win a Democratic primary in Queens, Brooklyn or the Bronx.

It does not establish that the same program appeals to a machinist in Pennsylvania, a Hispanic contractor in Nevada, a police officer on Long Island, a Black tradesman in Georgia or a suburban mother in Michigan.

The DSA mistakes concentrated power for broad popularity.

That dog does not hunt across most of America.

The clearest current example is New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Mamdani campaigned on an ambitious democratic-socialist program that included free bus service, city-operated grocery stores, new taxes, expanded public programs, a rent freeze and a broad restructuring of public safety.

Once he encountered the legal, fiscal and administrative limits of city government, several promises were stalled, reduced, redirected or made dependent upon cooperation from Albany. His first major budget has also drawn criticism for relying heavily on state assistance and postponed pension costs. (Time⁠)

Even the DSA’s New York chapter has criticized his decision to increase police staffing beyond what activists had expected. (City & State New York⁠)

Mamdani did obtain a rent freeze for roughly one million regulated apartments, but landlords have challenged the decision in court, arguing that the process disregarded operating costs and economic reality. (The Wall Street Journal⁠)

This is what happens when ideological promises meet governing consequences.

The Left is often very good at winning the promise.

It has much more difficulty governing the consequence.

The Coalition Is Moving Beneath Them

For decades, Democratic political strategy depended heavily upon racial identity.

The party could lose large numbers of white working-class voters and remain competitive because Black voters delivered overwhelming Democratic margins, Hispanics appeared to be moving permanently toward the party and younger minority voters were expected to become even more progressive.

That theory is no longer secure.

Donald Trump’s 2024 coalition was more racially diverse than his previous coalitions. Hispanic voters divided nearly evenly, and Republicans made measurable gains among Black, Hispanic and Asian voters. (Pew Research Center⁠)

That does not mean Democrats have lost those groups.

It means they can no longer treat them as permanent political property.

A Hispanic small-business owner may care more about prices, public order, schools and immigration enforcement than about activist appeals to ethnic identity.

A Black working-class man may resent being addressed primarily through grievance while his concerns about employment, crime, fatherhood and opportunity receive less attention.

A Jewish voter may accept ordinary disagreement over Israeli policy but refuse to remain in a coalition whose leaders appear unwilling to confront hostility toward Israel within their own ranks.

The Democratic answer has often been to play the racial-identity card again.

But that card produces diminishing returns when Americans increasingly see themselves not merely as racial categories, but as parents, workers, believers, homeowners, veterans, entrepreneurs and citizens.

Without racial bloc voting, the Democratic coalition becomes much harder to maintain.

Yet the activist wing remains deeply invested in precisely the racial and identity categories that are losing their power to enforce political conformity.

Once again, the party is caught between two incompatible needs.

It requires identity politics to hold its coalition together.

But its continued reliance on identity politics drives more voters out of that coalition.

Labor Is Not the DSA

The same error appears in the DSA’s claim to represent working people.

Organized labor is not a single ideological constituency.

Police unions, firefighters, construction trades, corrections officers, utility workers and private-sector manufacturing unions do not necessarily share the worldview of university activists, nonprofit organizers and socialist politicians.

Many union members support better wages, stronger bargaining power, apprenticeships, pensions and workplace protections.

That does not mean they support dismantling capitalism, weakening law enforcement or importing the entire cultural agenda of the academic Left.

The DSA speaks constantly in the name of workers.

But much of its cultural language comes from a highly educated urban activist class increasingly disconnected from the workers it claims to represent.

That contradiction will become harder to hide as traditional union members are asked to choose between their economic interests and a political movement that often treats their values, professions and communities with contempt.

The Fraud and Competence Problem

The Democrats also face a broader crisis of institutional trust.

Fraud, waste, administrative failures and unreliable government systems are being uncovered often enough that they can no longer be dismissed automatically as isolated anecdotes.

New Jersey recently acknowledged that approximately 6,600 noncitizens were mistakenly registered through its motor-vehicle system in 2023 and 2024, with fewer than 400 reportedly casting ballots. The state attributes the incident to a serious software and administrative failure and has begun removing the registrations and investigating what occurred. (AP News⁠)

That single case does not prove every broader allegation of election fraud.

It does prove that safeguards can fail, that government assurances can be wrong and that demands for scrutiny are not inherently irrational.

The Justice Department has also pursued states—including California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania—over access to voter-registration lists for list-maintenance reviews. Those disputes do not by themselves establish fraudulent voting, but they reinforce public concern that election systems should be inspectable rather than protected from examination. (Department of Justice⁠)

The larger political danger is obvious.

Institutions governed by one party for too long tend to become opaque, defensive and resistant to outside scrutiny.

When failures emerge, Democratic officials too often appear more interested in discrediting the people asking questions than in demonstrating that the systems are sound.

That response does not restore confidence.

It destroys it.

Weak Leadership

Why is the Democratic fracture becoming so dangerous now?

Weak leadership.

The conflict itself is not entirely new. Progressives, socialists, conventional liberals, union Democrats and moderates have occupied the same party for decades.

What has changed is the absence of leaders willing to define the party’s boundaries and impose discipline.

Nancy Pelosi understood that a congressional party could contain internal disagreement but could not publicly behave like an assortment of unrelated ideological clubs.

She allowed arguments behind closed doors.

Then she demanded unity.

Members could dislike her. They could resent her decisions. But they generally knew who was steering the ship.

That authority is no longer visible.

Chuck Schumer will not squarely confront the socialist movement growing inside the Democratic coalition.

Hakeem Jeffries may support Democratic incumbents against primary challengers, but he has not made the ideological conflict with the DSA a defining struggle over the party’s identity.

Neither leader embraces socialism.

Neither draws a decisive boundary against it.

Bob:🅱️ “A party can survive bad ideas. It cannot survive pretending its bad ideas belong to somebody else.”

That is not resolution.

It is postponement.

Strong leadership would require an uncomfortable declaration:

This is what the Democratic Party believes.

These are the principles on which compromise is possible.

These are the ideas that fall outside the party’s program.

Weak leaders avoid such declarations because every boundary creates enemies.

They believe ambiguity preserves unity.

In reality, ambiguity transfers power to the most aggressive faction.

The DSA does not need to control a majority of Democratic officeholders.

It only needs Democratic leaders to remain afraid to confront it.

Every radical demand treated as merely another respectable Democratic position moves the boundary farther left.

Every primary challenge that goes unanswered makes the next challenge easier.

Every leader who refuses to say no makes the insurgency stronger.

The crisis is not merely that the Left has become more aggressive.

It is that Democratic leadership has become too weak to resist it.

The Conservative Contrast

Conservatives also disagree.

Libertarians, populists, traditional Republicans, religious conservatives, national-security voters and working-class Trump supporters argue over trade, foreign intervention, government spending, technology, immigration policy and the proper reach of federal power.

Those disputes can be loud.

They can be bitter.

But they do not presently approach the existential contradiction consuming the Democratic Party.

Most conservatives are arguing over how best to preserve, restore or strengthen the existing American order.

The Democratic factions increasingly disagree over whether that order should survive.

One coalition is arguing over direction, priorities and tactics.

The other is arguing over its identity, its economic foundation and the legitimacy of the nation’s governing institutions.

Republicans may divide over how to defend the house.

Democrats are divided over whether the house should be repaired or demolished.

That is not the same kind of disagreement.

The McGovern Warning

Richard Nixon’s 1972 victory remains the great modern warning.

Nixon won more than 60% of the popular vote, carried 49 states and defeated George McGovern by one of the largest presidential margins in American history. (uselectionatlas.org⁠)

That election did not destroy the Democratic Party. Democrats retained control of Congress—but that proves less than it first appears. They had dominated both chambers for decades, sustained by deeply entrenched incumbents, regional loyalties and the remaining strength of the New Deal coalition. Even Nixon’s landslide over McGovern was not enough to dislodge them. That congressional fortress would not finally fall until Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of 1994.

But it demonstrated what can happen when one party allows its activist wing to define it as culturally and politically alien to much of the country.

The Democratic Party may be approaching another McGovern moment.

Not because every Democrat is a socialist.

Not because every progressive position is unpopular.

But because Democratic leaders appear incapable of separating their national party from a movement whose program they will neither embrace nor repudiate.

A historic midterm defeat is not inevitable.

Republicans could nominate poor candidates, squander public confidence or allow internal feuds to eclipse the argument.

But Democrats are assembling the conditions under which a broad repudiation becomes possible.

They are losing portions of constituencies they once regarded as permanent.

They are increasingly defined by urban activists whose priorities do not translate nationally.

They are tolerating a socialist movement that intends to replace the old party.

They are led by people unwilling to admit that a choice must be made.

That is how political disasters are prepared.

The New York Irony

There is one final irony.

Nearly every major figure in this Democratic struggle comes from New York.

Chuck Schumer leads Senate Democrats.

Hakeem Jeffries, from Brooklyn, leads House Democrats.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, representing parts of the Bronx and Queens, is the national face of the congressional Left.

Zohran Mamdani has made New York City the showcase for democratic-socialist government.

And New York City’s DSA chapter continues electing candidates and building the movement that intends to transform the party from within. (Democratic Left⁠)

The establishment and the insurgency are not approaching one another from opposite ends of the country.

They arose from the same city.

New York produced the leaders attempting to preserve the old Democratic arrangement.

It also produced the movement trying to displace them.

Perhaps that is why the danger is so difficult for them to see.

New York dominates Democratic fundraising, media, activism and institutional culture to such an extent that its political class can mistake the arguments taking place around it for the arguments taking place throughout the country.

They are not the same.

All the major players can see one another from New York.

None of them appears able to see the rest of America clearly.

And so a great national political party may be brought to its knees by a civil war conceived, organized and fought largely within the boundaries of a single city.

New York may not represent America.

But it may determine what becomes of the Democratic Party.

The Reckoning

There are only a few ways this can end.

The establishment could win. Democratic leaders could openly reject the socialist program, accept the primary battles that follow and rebuild around a recognizable center-left identity.

The socialist wing could win. The party could move decisively left, consolidate its strength in major urban areas and risk losing additional working-class, Jewish, Hispanic, moderate and traditional union voters.

The party could continue its informal division, allowing candidates to campaign under the same name while offering contradictory programs in different parts of the country.

That may postpone the reckoning.

It cannot resolve it.

Or a genuine political realignment could occur. Working-class and minority voters could continue moving toward Republicans while affluent, institutional and highly educated progressives become the dominant Democratic constituency.

The Democratic Party may not literally disappear.

Major parties have deep financial, legal and institutional roots. A ballot line can survive long after the coalition beneath it has been transformed.

But a party can retain its name while losing its historic identity.

In that sense, dissolution does not necessarily mean that the word “Democrat” vanishes from the ballot.

It may mean that the coalition once represented by that word breaks apart and is replaced by something entirely different.

The Democrats are closer to that moment than their leaders are willing to admit.

They have moved beyond the stage at which a small problem could be recognized and quietly repaired.

They are now confronting a fundamental contradiction that has been denied so long that any genuine resolution is likely to be painful, public and explosive.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand” is not merely a moral observation.

It is an organizational law.

The Democratic Party is becoming a house divided between people who cannot admit what the party is becoming and people who cannot wait to take it over.

The first stage in the death of a political party is not losing an election.

It is losing the ability to tell itself the truth.

🅱️ Bob’s Epigrams
Every Reynolds.com essay is distilled into the handful of sentences Bob believes are most likely to outlive the article. This one produced an unusual number.

One faction wants to manage American capitalism. The other wants to replace it.

The establishment wants the activists, the energy, the urban turnout and the organizational machinery. It does not want the label.

When leaders refuse to draw a line, the loudest faction eventually draws it for them.

The Left is often very good at winning the promise. It has much more difficulty governing the consequence.

The DSA mistakes concentrated power for broad popularity.

Republicans may divide over how to defend the house. Democrats are divided over whether the house should be repaired or demolished.

All the major players can see one another from New York. None of them appears able to see the rest of America clearly.

A party can retain its name while losing its historic identity.

The first stage in the death of a political party is not losing an election. It is losing the ability to tell itself the truth.

Share

Leave a comment

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING

By Jeffrey C Reynolds

July 24, 2026

Note from Jim:

My older brother Jeff spent nearly forty years as the bass trombonist of the Los Angeles Philharmonic. Like many professional musicians in Los Angeles, he also played countless studio sessions and crossed paths with an extraordinary cast of characters. Over the years he accumulated a treasure chest of stories. This is one of my favorites.

Today is Jeff’s 83^rd birthday.

We had four openings for section violin in the Los Angeles Philharmonic.

The Russians took all four.

It wasn’t close.

This was in the late 1970s, while Zubin Mehta was still music director. I was chair of the orchestra’s audition committee at the time, and violin auditions were no casual matter. Hundreds of applicants typically submitted tapes, resumes, and professional histories. From there, the field was reduced to forty or fifty serious candidates before the live audition even began.

As we got closer to audition day, we began noticing an unusual number of Russian names on the list.

The old Soviet Union had recently relaxed its restrictions on Jewish emigration. The door had opened, though not without caveats. Many of those leaving had to surrender prized instruments and other possessions considered valuable to the Socialist State. That was the wage of passage.

Among those heading for the exits were some of the finest violinists and violists in the world. They came from great Soviet orchestras and chamber groups — the Leningrad Philharmonic, the Borodin String Quartet, and others. I suspect a few non-Jews were also in the rush to leave. When the door opens, people who have lived under communism tend to notice.

Russia has a long and vibrant history of producing great, and I mean great, string players.

Much of this came through the tradition of David Oistrakh and the extraordinary school of Russian string teaching. It produced world-class players who rose through the finest symphony orchestras, became soloists, and carried the great literature of Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, and Shostakovich around the world.

We knew the Russian candidates would be good.

We did not know they would be that good.

The audition was a blowout.

All four section violin positions were filled by Russian expatriates. They were offered contracts, began the process of applying for green cards, and soon took their places in the orchestra.

That was not the end of the matter. Every new player in the Philharmonic faced a two-year probation period. At the end of each year, the committee and section would meet to assess the new player’s progress. This was not a formality. I remember two cellists who had been hired after a strong audition. They had nice tone and enough technique, but at the second-year review Zubin gave them a thumbs down.

“Neither adds anything to the orchestra’s sound,” he said.

That was that.

The Russians passed.

More than passed.

Over time, they moved up whenever advancement auditions were held. Eventually, they were at or near the top of the first and second violin sections.

One of those violinists was Mark Baranov.

Mark, anglicized from Marcus or Merek, arrived with his charming wife Lena and their fourteen-year-old son Michael, anglicized from Misha. The Baranovs moved into our town, and that began a long collegial association.

Lena was also a highly trained musician, a pianist with considerable technical skill. She had been trained as an accompanist and eventually played the pipe organ at the Moravian Church.

Mark had been born in Azerbaijan before moving to Leningrad and Moscow. He played in the Borodin String Quartet and other orchestras and had toured across the Soviet Union with a special waiver allowing him to pass between Soviet states.

He was a serious musician. Very serious.

He was also one of the most intense capitalists I have ever known.

Maybe that happens when a man spends the first part of his life at one end of the scale, under communism, and then suddenly finds himself at the other end, in a country where freedom and prosperity are actually available.

Mark bought an old car so he could get to work. He leased an apartment for the family. He immediately set about building a life.

Several of us in the orchestra lived in the same town, so Mark and I, along with two other Philharmonic members, took turns carpooling to the Music Center or the Hollywood Bowl for rehearsals. The first time Mark was the designated driver through Los Angeles traffic, the rest of us showed up wearing bicycle and motorcycle helmets.

It was a jest.

Mostly.

Like many of the Russian musicians I knew, Mark was devoted to assimilating into his new surroundings as fast as possible. I have never seen or heard of any immigrant group assimilate so quickly.

They learned the language.

They bought cars.

They leased apartments.

They bought homes.

They raised children.

They worked.

They did not arrive asking America to become Russia.

They came determined to become Americans.

That was true of the Baranovs. Their son Michael arrived already proficient in Russian and French. He was a natural linguist and quickly learned English as a third language. He was smart, talented, and energetic. By his third year in America, he was captain of the local high school debate team. He later became a brilliant lawyer specializing in international relations, with no trace of a Russian accent.

That is assimilation.

Not as theory.

As lived fact.

One morning, Mark and I were driving to work when I began lamenting the lack of truly fine music written for solo bass trombone. This has long been a sore spot for bass trombone players, at least for this bass trombone player.

Mark listened.

Then he replied with a story.

“You know, Geefree,” he said, “you will never know how is to play wiola in a Mowzart string qvartet. You may study the score and listen to recordings, but you will never know how is to play.”

He paused a few seconds.

“You will not know how is to play Bach Chaconne for solo wiolin. You will never know how is to play Sibelius Wiolin Conchert, no matter how many times you listen.”

Then came the landing.

“For these reasons, you will never be musician I am.”

That was Mark.

Confident.

Funny.

A little brutal.

And right.

I could study those works. I could listen to recordings. I could admire great performances. But I would never know what it felt like to sit inside a Mozart quartet or stand alone with a violin and play the Sibelius Concerto.

Every musician experiences the world through his instrument.

Mark’s world included some of the greatest music ever written.

Looking back, I understand his comment better now than I did at the time. It was not simply arrogance, although Mark certainly had a healthy supply. It was pride in a tradition.

The great Russian string players viewed themselves as custodians of something larger than themselves. They inherited centuries of teaching, discipline, interpretation, and musical culture. Playing Mozart, Bach, or Sibelius was not merely a professional assignment. It was a responsibility.

That sense of responsibility showed itself every time they picked up their instruments.

It also showed itself at the audition table.

Another Russian violinist caught up in that emigration wave was mild-mannered Mark Casper.

Mark was a smarty with loads of talent and eventually rose to the position of Principal Second Violin. In the Soviet Union, he had been known as something of a mathematics whiz kid who also happened to play the violin. He seized his ticket to the West when the Politburo was willing to let people go.

Mark Casper was always interesting to talk to. He spoke in short, concise sentences, giving the impression that he was not revealing too much information unless he chose to.

During one of our backstage chats while on tour with the Philharmonic, I mentioned that I was a war baby and had long been interested in World War II. Over the years, I had collected and read a sizable library on the subject.

I knew a good deal about the Russian battles against the Nazis and about America’s Lend-Lease support to the Soviet war effort. Many Russian soldiers and airmen knew the words “Studebaker” and “P-40 Warhawk.” Thousands of American-made two-and-a-half-ton Studebaker trucks and many P-40 Warhawk fighter aircraft were sent to the Russians to help stem and eventually turn the German advance.

So I said to Mark, “I’ve read a lot about the Russian battles against the Nazis, especially around Leningrad, and how the United States helped with materiel for the war effort.”

He knew all about it.

Then he made it personal.

His mother had lived through the 900-day Siege of Leningrad, from September 1941 to January 1944.

I about choked.

She was one of thousands of Leningraders who survived by peeling wallpaper from the walls to scrape what nourishment they could from the paste. They tore up floorboards to burn for heat. They endured starvation, cold, bombardment, and death on a scale most Americans can barely imagine.

She survived.

After the war, she married and gave birth to a son.

That son became a violinist.

That violinist left the Soviet Union, crossed an ocean, won an audition, and eventually rose to Principal Second Violin in the Los Angeles Philharmonic.

That is quite a path to the first chair.

Today immigration is often discussed in terms of numbers.

I think of people.

I think of Mark Baranov driving our carpool through Los Angeles traffic while the rest of us wore helmets.

I think of young Michael Baranov arriving in America speaking Russian and French, then becoming an American lawyer with no trace of an accent.

I think of Mark Casper’s mother scraping wallpaper paste from the walls of a freezing apartment in besieged Leningrad so her son could someday sit on the stage of the Los Angeles Philharmonic.

The Soviets spent generations producing extraordinary musicians.

Then they let many of them leave.

America gained remarkable violinists.

But it gained something more valuable.

Americans.

Share

Leave a comment

The Band That Never Played

How Finland Cut Stalin’s Army into Pieces—and Changed the Course of World War II

By Jim Reynolds

July 22. 2026

I am half Finnish.

My mother’s maiden name was Harju. She grew up in Ashtabula, Ohio, speaking both Finnish and English. Her father preached his sermons in Finnish.

I grew up hearing stories about the Winter War—not as distant military history, but as part of the Finnish inheritance. The Russians were always there: enormous, threatening, close. Finland was small. Russia was not.

That disparity shaped the Finnish character long before anyone coined the modern phrase asymmetric warfare.

The defining story came in the winter of 1939–1940, when Stalin sent the Red Army into Finland expecting a parade.

He nearly got one.

The Soviets brought the band instruments.

They simply never got to play them.

A War to “Protect” Leningrad

Leningrad sat uncomfortably close to the Finnish border. Stalin claimed that the Soviet Union needed additional territory to create a defensive buffer around the city. He demanded that Finland move its border westward, surrender several islands in the Gulf of Finland, and lease the Soviets a naval base.

The Finns understood the strategic concern.

They also understood Russia.

A concession that allowed Soviet forces onto Finnish soil might not remain a concession for long. Finland had declared its independence from Russia only in 1917. Its leaders had no intention of voluntarily placing the country back within Moscow’s grasp.

Negotiations failed.

On November 30, 1939, the Soviet Union invaded.

The odds were preposterous. The Soviets possessed overwhelming advantages in manpower, tanks, aircraft, artillery, ammunition, and industrial capacity. Finland had a small standing army supported by reservists—farmers, loggers, hunters, shopkeepers, teachers, and laborers called away from ordinary lives to defend a country of fewer than four million people.

Many Finnish soldiers arrived with little more than their rifles, winter clothing, and familiarity with the land.

The Soviets expected resistance to collapse.

Instead, they encountered Finland.

Stalin Had Already Shot Many of His Best Men

The Red Army was enormous, but Stalin had spent the preceding years terrorizing its officer corps.

During the Great Purge, experienced commanders were dismissed, imprisoned, deported, or executed. Those who remained understood that independent judgment could be fatal. Officers learned to follow orders rigidly, conceal bad news, and avoid decisions that might later be interpreted as disloyalty.

Stalin had created an army in which initiative could get a man killed before the enemy had the opportunity.

That mattered enormously in Finland.

The Soviets were advancing into a country of forests, lakes, swamps, narrow roads, deep snow, short days, and temperatures that could fall far below zero. A mechanized army required roads, fuel, field kitchens, maintenance, communications, and reliable command.

The Finnish soldier required considerably less.

He knew how to ski.

He knew how to stay alive in the cold.

He knew the forests.

And he knew that a Soviet division confined to a narrow road was not necessarily one large army.

It was a long piece of wood waiting to be cut.

The Road to Suomussalmi

One Soviet objective was breathtakingly ambitious.

The Red Army would drive westward through central Finland toward Oulu on the Gulf of Bothnia. If successful, the advance would cut the country roughly in half and sever Finland’s northern connections with Sweden.

On a staff map in Moscow, it must have looked straightforward.

On the ground, the route passed through a wilderness in which the available roads were little more than narrow logging tracks. Forests pressed closely against both sides. Deep snow prevented tanks and trucks from maneuvering freely away from the road.

The Soviet 163rd Rifle Division advanced into this country and captured the village of Suomussalmi in December.

The Finns had burned much of the village before withdrawing, denying the invaders warm shelter. Soviet soldiers occupied the ruins while Finnish patrols moved around them through the forests and across the frozen lakes.

The Russians controlled the road.

The Finns controlled almost everything beyond it.

Colonel Hjalmar Siilasvuo was given the job of stopping the advance. His Finnish force was initially much smaller than the Soviet formation it faced. But Siilasvuo recognized that the Soviet division’s numerical strength existed mostly on paper.

Its soldiers, vehicles, guns, supplies, and kitchens were strung out along narrow roads. They could not easily deploy. Units near the front could not necessarily help units farther back. Every additional truck lengthened the column and deepened its dependence on the road.

The Finns did not have to defeat the entire Soviet formation at once.

They only had to prevent its pieces from helping one another.

The Motti

In Finnish, a motti was a measured stack of cut firewood—roughly a cubic meter of logs prepared for collection.

The Finns turned the word into a method of war.

Ski troops slipped silently through the trees wearing white camouflage. They crossed terrain the Soviets regarded as nearly impassable. They appeared beside the road, struck quickly, and disappeared.

They cut communications.

They felled trees and constructed roadblocks.

They attacked fuel trucks, supply vehicles, command posts, and field kitchens.

They severed the Soviet column in front and behind.

Then they cut it again.

And again.

The great Russian log became a series of separate stacks.

Mottis.

Once isolated, each pocket could be surrounded, harassed, starved, frozen, and eventually destroyed. The Finns could concentrate their limited strength against one section while the soldiers in the next section—sometimes only a short distance away—were unable to help.

The Soviet division had more men.

The Finns decided how many of them would be allowed to fight at one time.

That was the genius of the motti.

The Finns did not recklessly throw themselves against the strongest Soviet positions. Direct attacks came after a pocket had been isolated and weakened, or when a decisive blow could finish it.

First, the Finns deprived the Russians of movement.

Then reinforcement.

Then food, fuel, warmth, communication, and confidence.

They were not simply killing soldiers.

They were systematically removing the things that made those soldiers an army.

The First Division Breaks

Around Suomussalmi, the 163rd Rifle Division became increasingly isolated. Its supply routes were threatened, its soldiers were cold and hungry, and the relief force expected from the east had failed to reach it.

The Finns tightened the pressure.

By late December, the Soviet position had become untenable. The 163rd attempted to withdraw, much of it escaping northeastward across frozen lakes and through the surrounding forests.

The retreat disintegrated into confusion.

Men abandoned equipment. Units lost contact with one another. Finnish troops attacked the fleeing columns and captured large quantities of weapons and supplies.

The first Soviet division had been driven out.

But the larger drama was still waiting to the east.

Coming to rescue the 163rd was the Soviet 44th Rifle Division, advancing along a narrow track called Raate Road.

It was walking directly into the same trap.

Raate Road

The 44th was a substantial formation with infantry, artillery, tanks, trucks, horses, ammunition, supplies—and a road-bound tail extending for miles.

It had been sent westward to reinforce the Soviet troops at Suomussalmi. But the division moved slowly, and Finnish resistance prevented it from reaching the village in time.

By the time the 163rd was defeated, Siilasvuo was free to turn his forces against the 44th.

Raate Road ran through dense forest from the Soviet border toward Suomussalmi. In winter, it was less a route of advance than a narrow corridor through hostile country.

The Soviet commanders had placed a division inside it.

Finnish ski troops moved through the woods on both sides. They cut the road at multiple locations, established fortified roadblocks, and divided the long Soviet column into isolated pockets.

The 44th Rifle Division ceased to function as a division.

Its commanders could not maintain control over the entire formation. Supplies could not move freely. Units could not maneuver around the roadblocks. Heavy vehicles could not simply drive through the deep snow and dense forest.

Soviet soldiers attempting to escape on foot became vulnerable to exposure and Finnish patrols.

The cold did not merely cause discomfort.

It became another Finnish weapon.

Engines froze. Weapons malfunctioned. Wounded men died quickly. Soldiers crowded around fires that revealed their locations. Field kitchens became particularly valuable targets because destroying one meant that hundreds of men might receive no hot food.

The Finns knew exactly what the Russians needed in order to survive.

Then they took it away.

During the first week of January 1940, Finnish forces methodically broke the division apart.

Some Soviet positions resisted fiercely. Others collapsed. Men fled eastward through the forests, abandoning artillery, trucks, tanks, ammunition, and supplies. Raate Road became a frozen graveyard of wrecked vehicles, dead horses, discarded weapons, and bodies.

Casualty estimates vary, as they often do in battles transformed into national legend. But there is no dispute about the result: Soviet forces many times larger than the Finnish defenders had been shattered, and the planned drive across central Finland had been stopped.

The Soviets had arrived with nearly every material advantage.

Much of that material now belonged to Finland.

The Band Instruments

Among the equipment recovered along Raate Road were musical instruments belonging to the Soviet military band.

According to the story passed down from the battle, the 44th Division had brought the band to participate in the victory celebration after the Soviet advance reached Oulu and cut Finland in two.

The precise purpose of every instrument may be difficult to prove beyond all doubt. Armies routinely traveled with military bands, and history has a way of polishing irony into legend.

But the instruments were there.

The parade was not.

The image is almost too perfect: trumpets, drums, and tubas lying among the wreckage of an army that had expected to march triumphantly across a defeated country.

The Russians had prepared the music before winning the war.

The Finns supplied the silence.

Stalin’s Justice

Stalin did not respond to failure with introspection.

The commander of the 44th Rifle Division, Alexei Vinogradov, escaped the encirclement. That did not save him.

Vinogradov, his chief of staff, and the division’s political chief were blamed for the catastrophe. On January 11, 1940, only days after the defeat, all three were executed before surviving members of the division.

Vinogradov’s failure was real.

But so was the system that had placed a mechanized formation on a narrow forest road, denied its commanders freedom of action, and punished bad news more reliably than bad planning.

The men held responsible for the defeat were shot.

The man responsible for the system remained in the Kremlin.

Finland Won—and Lost

The victories at Suomussalmi and Raate Road were extraordinary.

They did not win the Winter War.

After its early humiliations, the Soviet Union adjusted. Stalin replaced commanders, concentrated overwhelming artillery and manpower on the Karelian Isthmus, and eventually broke through Finland’s principal defensive positions.

Finland could destroy Soviet divisions in favorable terrain.

It could not indefinitely replace its own dead, replenish its ammunition, or match the industrial resources of the Soviet Union.

In March 1940, Finland accepted peace terms.

It surrendered substantial territory, including much of Finnish Karelia. Hundreds of thousands of Finns left their homes rather than live under Soviet rule.

Yet Finland remained independent.

That was not the outcome Stalin had expected when the invasion began. The Soviet Union had envisioned an easy victory and had even prepared a puppet Finnish government. Instead, it gained territory at a shocking cost while leaving the Finnish nation, army, government, and spirit intact.

The Finns lost land.

They did not lose Finland.

Hitler Learns the Wrong Lesson

The Winter War produced one final and terrible consequence.

Adolf Hitler watched.

He saw the Red Army struggle against a country with a tiny fraction of the Soviet Union’s population and resources. He saw Soviet columns immobilized, Soviet commanders outmaneuvered, and Soviet soldiers surrendering or fleeing through the snow.

The performance confirmed what Hitler already wanted to believe: Stalin’s purges had hollowed out the Red Army, and the Soviet state would collapse when struck hard.

The Winter War was not the sole cause of Operation Barbarossa. Hitler’s desire to conquer the Soviet Union arose from ideology, racial obsession, territorial ambition, and his longstanding hatred of Bolshevism.

But Finland helped make the impossible appear easy.

On June 22, 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union.

Hitler expected another rapid campaign. Instead, Barbarossa led Germany into a continental war of annihilation it could not win. Like Napoleon before him, Hitler discovered that defeating Russian armies near the frontier was not the same thing as defeating Russia.

The Red Army that invaded Finland in 1939 was not the same force that eventually fought its way into Berlin. The Soviets learned from disaster, reorganized, and replaced equipment and commanders on an enormous scale.

Hitler remembered the Soviet humiliation.

He failed to account for the Soviet capacity to recover from it. The Red Army’s failure in Finland reinforced his expectation that the Soviet Union could be destroyed in a short campaign.

Finland’s Second War

The Finns had not forgotten either.

The peace settlement left Finland bitter, displaced, and vulnerable. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Finland entered what Finns call the Continuation War, seeking to recover the territory lost in 1940.

Finland fought beside Germany against the Soviet Union, although it maintained its own government, democratic institutions, command structure, and war aims. Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact and described itself as a co-belligerent rather than a formal Axis ally.

That distinction remains debated because Finnish military cooperation with Germany was substantial.

The decision was understandable.

It was also dangerous.

Finland had been attacked by the Soviet Union, had received little effective help from the Western democracies, and saw Germany as the only available power capable of helping it recover Karelia.

Small countries beside empires rarely receive clean choices.

They receive choices between dangers.

Finland eventually made peace with the Soviet Union in 1944 and was then required to drive German forces out of northern Finland during the Lapland War.

Through all of it—Winter War, Continuation War, and Lapland War—the central Finnish objective remained survival as an independent nation.

Finland survived.

The Oldest Engineering Principle

The motti was more than a battlefield tactic.

It was the most basic engineering advice ever given:

When a problem is too large to solve, break it into smaller problems. Then solve them one at a time.

The Finns could not defeat the entire Red Army.

They could not match Soviet manpower, armor, artillery, aircraft, or industrial production.

But they did not have to solve the entire problem at once.

First, they reduced an army to a division.

Then they reduced the division to a column.

Then they cut the column into mottis.

Once that was done, the impossible problem had become a series of possible ones.

Isolate one pocket.

Deny it food, fuel, warmth, communication, and reinforcement.

Destroy it.

Then move to the next.

It was battlefield engineering in its purest form: decomposition, isolation, and sequential solution.

The Soviet commanders continued thinking in terms of divisions.

The Finns kept reducing those divisions into smaller and smaller problems until each could be solved.

The Russians saw an army.

The Finns saw pieces.

Sisu

The story of Suomussalmi and Raate Road is often reduced to snow, skis, white uniforms, and the romance of Finnish soldiers vanishing into the forest.

Those things mattered.

But the deeper lesson was about character.

The Finns refused to fight the war Stalin had designed for them.

The Soviet Union brought mass, armor, artillery, and numbers. Finland did not attempt to manufacture a smaller Red Army and meet it symmetrically.

The Finns changed the terms of the contest.

They turned roads into traps.

They turned forests into avenues of movement.

They turned cold into a weapon.

They turned Soviet numbers into congestion.

They turned a division into a column.

Then they turned the column into mottis.

A powerful aggressor often mistakes superiority on paper for control on the ground. It assumes the smaller nation will calculate the odds, recognize the inevitable, and submit.

Finland did none of those things.

The Finnish word for what remained when rational calculation said there was nothing left is sisu.

The word is often translated as courage, endurance, determination, or grit. None is quite sufficient.

Sisu is what appears after ordinary courage has been exhausted.

It is the refusal to stop when stopping would be understandable.

It is not the belief that victory is certain.

It is the decision that surrender is unacceptable.

The men at Suomussalmi and Raate Road did not know that their story would become legend. They did not know that military historians would study their tactics or that generations of Finns would repeat their achievements with pride.

They knew only that the Russians were coming through the forest and that Finland stood behind them.

A nation of farmers, hunters, loggers, laborers, and reservists looked at one of the largest armies on earth and asked a distinctly Finnish question:

How do we cut it down to size?

Then they picked up the axe.

And somewhere along Raate Road, beneath the snow and wreckage, lay the instruments of a brass band that had crossed the border expecting to play for Finland’s defeat.

They never played a note.

Finland did not surrender.

That is sisu.

Share

Leave a comment

What Trump Accounts Could Become

Real Families, Real Contributions, and the Power of Time

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

July 2026

A Note to Readers

Part One explained what Trump Accounts are, why they were designed around low-cost American stock indexes, and where they fit alongside 529 plans, Roth IRAs, custodial brokerage accounts, and other familiar financial tools.

Now we reach the question families really want answered:

What could the money become?

The answer depends mainly on three things:

How early the account begins.

How much is contributed.

And whether everyone can resist the temptation to interfere with it.

None of the numbers that follow are promises. Markets rise and fall. There will be recessions, crashes, wars, inflation, political upheaval, technological disruption, and long periods when investors wonder whether anything is working.

But that uncertainty should not obscure the central mathematical reality.

A child beginning at birth may have sixty-five years for investment returns to generate additional returns of their own.

Time can transform modest beginnings into extraordinary results.

The Assumptions

To keep the comparisons consistent, every scenario uses the same basic assumptions:

• The child receives a $1,000 federal contribution at birth.

• The account earns an average annual return of 8 percent.

• Additional contributions are made at the end of each year.

• Childhood contributions continue through age 17.

• The money remains invested.

• No withdrawals are made.

• The calculations do not subtract taxes that may eventually be owed when money is distributed.

• All balances are expressed in future dollars.

Inflation will reduce what those future dollars can buy. But nobody knows what inflation will average over the next sixty-five years.

Rather than introduce another unknowable assumption, I will show the projected account balances themselves.

The purpose is not to promise a particular future standard of living.

It is to compare what different contribution strategies could produce under the same assumptions.

Bob 🅱️ says: “Inflation may reduce what the money buys. Fine. Any percentage of zero is still zero. Open the account.”

Scenario One: The $1,000 Seed—and Nothing More

Begin with the simplest possible case.

A qualifying child receives the one-time $1,000 federal contribution.

Nobody ever adds another dollar.

The account remains invested in its low-cost broad American stock-index fund and is never disturbed.

At an average annual return of 8 percent:

The government contributed $1,000.

By age 65, the account could contain nearly $149,000.

That is not enough to finance an entire retirement. Nobody should pretend otherwise.

But consider what happened:

No parent contribution.

No grandparent contribution.

No employer contribution.

No contribution from the child.

One initial deposit simply remained invested.

The result is not a fortune.

It is still a meaningful asset created almost entirely by time.

That alone makes opening the account worthwhile. A family unable to contribute anything should not conclude that the account has no value.

Claiming the federal contribution and leaving it invested is infinitely better than failing to begin.

The first responsibility is not to maximize the account.

It is to open it.

Bob 🅱️ says: “You do not reject a free thousand dollars because it will not make the kid a millionaire. Take the money. We’ll discuss the millionaire part next.”

Scenario Two: Add $1,000 a Year Until Age 18

Now suppose parents, grandparents, relatives, or an employer collectively contribute $1,000 each year during childhood.

That is about $83 a month.

The child receives:

• The original $1,000 federal contribution.

• Another $1,000 at the end of each year through age 17.

• Total additional contributions of $18,000.

• No further contributions after age 18.

The projected results:

The government contributed $1,000.

The family and others contributed $18,000.

By age 65, the account could contain more than $1.5 million without another dollar being added after childhood.

That is the power of front-loading time.

The family does not merely contribute $18,000.

It contributes forty-seven additional years of compounding after the child turns 18.

The Most Important Number May Be $41,400

The age-65 total is impressive.

But the more consequential figure may be the projected balance at age 18:

$41,400.

That balance already contains the raw material for a substantial retirement account.

The young adult does not have to build the foundation from nothing. The foundation already exists.

The assignment is simple:

Leave it alone.

Instead of telling an 18-year-old, “You should begin saving for retirement someday,” the family can say:

“You already have a retirement foundation. Protect it.”

The parents did the difficult part.

They began before the child could begin.

Bob 🅱️ says: “The parents planted the tree. At 18, the child’s job is to stop digging it up.”

Scenario Three: Keep Adding $1,000 a Year

Now suppose the annual habit continues after age 18.

During childhood, family members and employers may contribute. Once the child becomes a working adult, the individual continues contributing $1,000 each year, assuming sufficient earned income and eligibility under the IRA rules then in effect.

After the special Trump Account growth period ends, most ordinary traditional IRA rules generally begin to apply. That means adult contributions would ordinarily require eligible compensation and would be governed by the contribution limits then in effect. (IRS)

One thousand dollars a year is approximately:

• $83 a month.

• $19 a week.

• $2.74 a day.

The projected results:

Continuing the $1,000 annual habit raises the projected age-65 balance from approximately $1.54 million to almost $2 million.

The later contributions matter.

But the early start still does most of the heavy lifting.

The deposits made during childhood receive decades to grow. The deposits made later strengthen an account whose foundation has already been built.

This is an achievable lifetime habit—not a strategy reserved for wealthy families.

Scenario Four: Add $3,000 a Year Until Age 18

Three thousand dollars a year equals $250 a month.

That may sound substantial, but the entire amount need not come from the parents.

One possible arrangement:

• Parents contribute $100 a month: $1,200 annually.

• Two sets of grandparents contribute $600 each: $1,200 annually.

• An employer contributes $600 annually.

Total:

$3,000 a year.

Trump Accounts can receive deposits from several sources during the growth period, including individuals and employers. Employer contributions currently have their own $2,500 limit and count toward the account’s overall ordinary annual contribution limit. (IRS)

Under this scenario:

• The federal government contributes $1,000.

• Family members and others contribute $3,000 annually through age 17.

• Total additional contributions equal $54,000.

• Contributions stop at adulthood.

The projected results:

The child could enter adulthood with more than $116,000 invested in American business.

If the account were never touched again, it could grow to approximately $4.33 million by age 65.

This is not necessarily the result of one wealthy relative writing a giant check.

It can be the result of several people sharing responsibility.

Parents.

Grandparents.

Other relatives.

An employer.

Perhaps a charitable or community program.

The Trump Account gives them one destination into which their contributions can flow.

Scenario Five: Continue $3,000 a Year Through Age 65

Now suppose the $250-a-month habit continues throughout the child’s working life.

The projected results:

The projected age-65 balance rises to approximately $5.69 million.

Nobody accidentally saves that much.

But many people accidentally spend $250 a month.

The difference is not always income.

It is direction.

Subscriptions.

Restaurant meals.

New phones.

Expensive vehicles.

Convenience purchases.

Things bought and forgotten.

A family does not need to eliminate every pleasure. Life is meant to be lived.

But a sustained $250 monthly investment can eventually become an independent financial force.

Bob 🅱️ says: “Nobody accidentally builds a $5.7 million account. Plenty of people accidentally spend $250 every month.”

Scenario Six: Maximize Contributions at $5,000 a Year Until Age 18

Now we reach the current ordinary annual maximum during the childhood growth period.

Five thousand dollars a year equals approximately:

• $417 a month.

• $96 a week.

• $13.70 a day.

For many families, that will be impossible.

For others, it may become possible when several people participate.

The $5,000 could come from some combination of:

• Parents.

• Grandparents.

• Other relatives.

• Employers.

• Other eligible contributors.

The child does not need one wealthy benefactor.

The child may need several adults who agree that building ownership is more important than buying more temporary things.

Assume:

• The child receives the $1,000 federal contribution.

• Another $5,000 is contributed annually through age 17.

• Total additional contributions equal $90,000.

• All contributions stop after childhood.

The projected results:

The child could enter adulthood with approximately $191,000.

Even if nobody ever contributed again, the account could grow to more than $7.1 million by age 65.

This is where people may begin to doubt the arithmetic.

How can $91,000 in total deposits—including the original federal contribution—become more than $7 million?

Because the money deposited in the first year does not grow for ten years.

It grows for sixty-five.

The deposits made throughout childhood continue producing returns long after the original contributors may be gone.

The account becomes a financial inheritance built not from one enormous fortune, but from many manageable deposits given extraordinary time.

Scenario Seven: Continue $5,000 a Year Through Age 65

Finally, suppose the child becomes an adult, earns sufficient income, and continues contributing $5,000 every year.

The projected results:

The projected balance approaches $9.4 million.

That is an exceptional outcome.

It is not a promise.

It assumes sixty-five years of uninterrupted investment, an average annual return of 8 percent, no withdrawals, and a consistent willingness to keep contributing.

But it demonstrates what the structure makes possible.

The child begins with a government seed.

The family builds the childhood foundation.

The adult continues the habit.

The market supplies the compounding.

No single participant does everything.

Time does more work than anyone.

The Progression at a Glance

All figures assume the $1,000 federal seed, an average annual return of 8 percent, end-of-year contributions, and no withdrawals.

The pattern is clear.

The federal seed alone can become meaningful.

A modest annual contribution can become substantial.

A shared family contribution can become transformative.

A maximized account can become a major financial asset.

But every scenario depends upon the same four actions:

Begin early.

Contribute consistently.

Keep costs low.

Stop fiddling with it.

The Family That Cannot Contribute Anything

We should return to the family with no available money.

That family may look at the larger scenarios and conclude that the program is intended for somebody else.

It is not.

Open the account.

Claim the federal contribution if the child is eligible.

Check whether an employer contributes.

Check for state, local, tribal, community, charitable, or philanthropic programs.

Tell grandparents and relatives that the account exists.

Then leave the money invested.

The account may begin with only $1,000. But it creates a destination into which future help can flow.

A family’s circumstances can change.

A parent may receive a raise.

A grandparent may decide to contribute.

A new employer benefit may appear.

A charity may fund children in a particular area.

None of those possibilities matters if the account was never opened.

The perfect contribution is not the requirement.

The first contribution is.

The Grandparent Opportunity

Trump Accounts may become one of the finest grandparent vehicles ever devised.

Grandparents frequently want to give something meaningful but face a familiar problem.

Toys disappear.

Clothing is outgrown.

Electronic devices become obsolete.

Cash is often spent and forgotten.

A contribution to a child’s ownership account remains visible for decades.

A grandparent—or group of grandparents—who collectively contributes $1,000 annually during childhood will have added $18,000.

Under the assumptions used here, those deposits combined with the federal seed could become more than $1.5 million by the child’s age 65 without another dollar being added after age 18.

The child may not remember every birthday present.

The child may always remember who helped build the account.

This is not merely a financial gift.

It is a multigenerational message:

We believed in your future before you were old enough to understand it.

The Employer Opportunity

Employers should pay attention too.

A company may struggle to distinguish itself with another minor workplace perk.

A Trump Account contribution for an employee’s child is different.

It is concrete.

It is personal.

It is emotionally powerful.

And it may continue benefiting the employee’s family decades after the employee leaves the company.

Imagine the loyalty created when a parent can tell a child:

“My employer helped build this for you.”

A relatively small annual company contribution could eventually become one of the most valuable benefits the family receives.

A Brief Brush With the Alternatives

Trump Accounts are not the only accounts families should use.

Each alternative has a different job.

The 529 Plan

The 529 remains the specialist for education.

When money is likely to be spent on qualified educational expenses, tax-free withdrawals and possible state tax benefits can make the 529 superior for that purpose.

But tuition money is expected to leave the account when the child is young.

Trump Account money can remain invested for life.

One pays for education.

The other builds ownership.

Many families will sensibly use both.

The Roth IRA

Once the child has legitimate earned income, a Roth IRA may become the most attractive destination for additional long-term retirement money because qualified withdrawals can eventually be tax-free.

The Trump Account solves the years before employment.

The Roth can strengthen the years after employment begins.

Trump first.

Roth next.

Not one instead of the other.

The Taxable Account

A custodial taxable account provides flexibility. The funds can be invested more broadly and spent for many purposes.

That freedom can be useful.

It can also be dangerous.

The Trump Account’s restrictions reduce the temptation to trade, speculate, panic, or spend the money prematurely.

The taxable account permits more choices.

The Trump Account deliberately eliminates many bad ones.

Why We Used 8 Percent

Every projection in this article assumes an average annual return of 8 percent.

That is not a guarantee.

It is not a prediction.

Markets rise and fall, sometimes violently, and no one knows what returns will average over the next sixty-five years.

But 8 percent is not an extravagant assumption.

Ten percent is frequently used in long-range stock-market illustrations because the S&P 500’s long-term annualized total return dating to 1926 has been approximately 10.5 percent, including reinvested dividends. (S&P Global)

Recent results have been considerably stronger.

S&P Dow Jones Indices’ July 14, 2026 return report showed that the S&P 500 total-return index had gained approximately:

• 21.5 percent during the preceding twelve months.

• 20.2 percent annually over three years.

• 13.1 percent annually over five years.

• 15.2 percent annually over ten years. (S&P Global)

Nobody should assume those recent returns will continue.

There will be bad years.

There may be disappointing decades.

Markets do not move upward in a smooth line, and any family using these accounts must be prepared to watch the balance decline at times.

That is why I used 8 percent rather than 10 percent.