The Climate Mirage 2026

The End of the Hysteria Autopsy

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

May 24, 2026

The climate is changing.

Of course it is.

The climate has always changed.

Ice ages existed before SUVs.
Glaciers advanced and retreated before coal plants.
The Sahara was once green.
Vikings farmed Greenland during warmer periods.
Civilizations froze, flooded, migrated, adapted, collapsed, and reinvented themselves beneath changing skies long before Al Gore discovered PowerPoint.

So let’s stop pretending the argument was ever about whether climate changes.

It was always about something else.

Fear.
Money.
Control.
Prestige.
Certainty.
And perhaps most importantly:

Trust.

Because after thirty years of climate panic, ordinary people have started asking a dangerous question:

Why do the experts always miss in the same direction?

The apocalypse deadlines come and go.
The glaciers disappear slower than advertised.
The islands remain inconveniently above water.
The famines fail to arrive on schedule.
The polar bears stubbornly refuse to vanish.
The hurricanes refuse to cooperate consistently enough with the narrative.
And every few years the countdown clock quietly resets itself another decade into the future.

Meanwhile the funding never declines.

That’s the tell.

At some point ordinary people began noticing that modern climate activism increasingly resembled a permanent institutional ecosystem rather than a purely scientific enterprise.

Governments.
Universities.
NGOs.
Climate czars.
Corporate ESG divisions.
Carbon markets.
Green investment funds.
Academic departments.
International conferences featuring celebrities arriving on private jets to explain why your lawn mower is destroying civilization.

Entire careers now depend on the continuation of climate alarm.

And like most large bureaucratic ecosystems, it adapts remarkably well to permanence.

Now before the usual screaming begins, let’s be clear:

This does not mean every climate scientist is corrupt.

Many are sincere people trying honestly to understand extraordinarily complicated systems.

But sincerity does not eliminate incentives.

And incentives matter.

Especially once the models arrive.

Now here is where ordinary people quietly stop nodding.

Because once a system contains enough variables, assumptions, weighting functions, historical reconstructions, probabilistic scenarios, smoothing mechanisms, calibration targets, and feedback loops, the average citizen instinctively understands something important:

The outputs become negotiable.

Anyone who has ever written complex simulations knows this.

Tiny assumptions compound.
Boundary conditions matter enormously.
Input weighting changes outcomes dramatically.
Omitted variables reshape entire projections.

And somehow — almost magically — the overwhelming majority of public climate models, institutional summaries, media headlines, and political speeches always land in the same place:

Man is causing catastrophic warming.
Man must surrender more economic freedom.
Man must consume less energy.
Man must drive less.
Man must eat differently.
Man must pay more taxes.
Man must trust the experts immediately.

Curiously, the models almost never drift toward:
“the system may be less sensitive than projected,”
or
“human adaptation may outperform the forecasts,”
or
“the effects may prove manageable.”

No.

The errors almost always move in one political direction.

After thirty years, ordinary people stopped viewing that as coincidence.

Bob looked at the latest climate projection.

“So once again…”

Long pause.

“…civilization ends in twelve years?”

Another pause.

“Interesting how the grant renewals always arrive first.”

Then came the Hockey Stick.

Michael Mann’s famous graph became one of the most powerful propaganda images of the modern era:
a long flat climate history suddenly exploding upward into catastrophe precisely as modern industrial society arrived.

The graph appeared everywhere:
schools,
documentaries,
media reports,
political speeches,
global conferences.

It became sacred.

Then critics challenged the methodology. Lawsuits followed. Institutions circled the wagons. The public watched scientists, activists, journalists, politicians, and universities suddenly behave less like detached truth-seekers and more like a coordinated priesthood defending holy scripture.

Ordinary people drew their own conclusions.

If the science is unquestionably settled, why does scrutiny produce panic instead of confidence?

And then there was Al Gore.

Perhaps no modern public figure better symbolizes the transformation of climate anxiety into a profitable moral-industrial complex.

An Inconvenient Truth was not merely a documentary.

It was a traveling apocalypse revival meeting.

Flooded coastlines.
Drowning cities.
Melting ice caps.
Doom clocks.
Existential countdowns.
Children terrified in classrooms.
Teachers presenting speculative timelines as settled destiny.
News anchors speaking like junior clergy.

Meanwhile Gore became extraordinarily wealthy and influential through climate-related investments, speaking circuits, green funds, carbon markets, and institutional prestige.

And eventually ordinary people noticed something deeply strange:

The men predicting catastrophe always seemed to become richer when the catastrophe deadlines failed.

That destroys trust.

Especially among working people now being told:

• gasoline is immoral

• air travel is selfish

• suburban life is unsustainable

• meat consumption is dangerous

• and affordable energy itself may be a moral problem

Then the climate movement finally crossed into self-parody.

Cow farts.

That was the moment millions of ordinary Americans quietly exited the theater.

The same civilization that split the atom, mapped the genome, invented the microchip, built the modern world, and landed men on the moon was now being informed that Bessie from Oklahoma represented an existential planetary threat.

Tyrus called it “social injustice against bovine Americans.”

Honestly, the cattle may still have a case.

And somewhere in the middle of all this, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez informed the country that the world might end in roughly twelve years if dramatic action was not taken immediately.

For a while the countdown became cultural law.

Children panicked.
Activists glued themselves to highways.
Corporations performed carbon rituals.
Politicians spoke in emergency language.
News organizations treated skepticism itself as moral deviance.

Then, rather quietly, the countdown faded away.

The world did not end.
Miami did not disappear beneath the Atlantic.
Civilization stubbornly continued operating.

And the same people who once spoke with absolute certainty simply drifted toward newer slogans and newer emergencies.

That’s when millions of ordinary people stopped hearing science and started hearing theater.

Science is supposed to tolerate skepticism.
Models are supposed to admit uncertainty.
Predictions are supposed to face accountability.
Complex systems are supposed to humble experts.

Instead climate discourse increasingly became moral performance wrapped around institutional incentives.

Questioning assumptions became “denial.”
Skepticism became heresy.
Doubt became immorality.

And once science becomes fused with politics, censorship, career incentives, celebrity culture, financial interests, and ideological tribalism, public trust collapses very quickly.

That is where we are now.

Not in a debate about whether climate changes.

But in a collapsing argument about whether the institutions managing the narrative still deserve public trust.

And then came perhaps the strangest development of all:

Even parts of the federal government itself quietly began admitting that much of the public climate rhetoric had become exaggerated, politicized, and disconnected from realistic cost-benefit analysis.

Not “human extinction.”
Not “the end of civilization.”
Not “twelve years left.”

Just another extraordinarily complicated environmental and economic problem requiring tradeoffs, adaptation, engineering, resilience, and realism.

Which, after thirty years of apocalypse marketing, sounded almost revolutionary.

Bob flipped through the latest reassessment.

“Interesting.”

Long pause.

“So now the emergency is having an emergency about the emergency.”

Another pause.

“That’s a tough business model.”

Bob looked around the latest emergency climate summit.

“They keep announcing the end of the world…”

Long pause.

“…from five-star resorts.”

One final pause.

“And somehow the cows are the villains.”

Afterword: Where We Are Now

The strangest part of the climate saga may be what happened after Donald Trump returned to the White House.

The funding machinery suddenly encountered resistance.

Budgets were reviewed.
Programs were frozen.
Climate offices faced cuts.
Environmental-justice grants came under scrutiny.
Federal agencies quietly began reassessing whether endless apocalypse spending actually matched measurable public benefit.

And suddenly the tone changed.

Not “human extinction.”
Not “the final twelve years.”
Not “the end of civilization.”

Just another very complicated environmental and economic challenge requiring tradeoffs, engineering, adaptation, infrastructure, realism, and adult cost-benefit analysis.

Which, after three decades of theatrical panic, sounded almost shocking.

The same institutions that once spoke with near-religious certainty suddenly rediscovered words like:
“resilience,”
“pragmatism,”
“energy transition timelines,”
and
“balanced approaches.”

Translation:

The hysteria market softened.

That alone tells you something important.

If the threat were truly immediate, existential, and mathematically unavoidable, budget reductions would not alter the emotional temperature of the movement at all.

But somehow the rhetoric cooled remarkably fast once the money pipelines and political leverage came under pressure.

That’s another tell.

None of this means climate concerns are fake.
None of it means pollution is good.
None of it means humans have zero environmental impact.

It simply means millions of ordinary people no longer trust the institutional performance surrounding the issue.

That trust was not destroyed by skeptics.

It was destroyed by exaggerated certainty, failed countdowns, emotional manipulation, celebrity hypocrisy, political opportunism, censorship, and a permanent stream of predictions that somehow always required more money, more control, and less questioning.

The climate may continue changing for centuries.

But the hysteria appears to be changing already.

Bob looked over the latest federal budget cuts.

“Interesting.”

Long pause.

“So the end of civilization survived the appropriations process.”

Another pause.

“That’s encouraging.”

One final pause.

“Bad quarter for the apocalypse industry, though.”

Bob’s Final Assessment

“The climate may keep changing forever.”

Pause.

“The panic market, though…”

Another pause.

“…that thing finally looks seasonal.”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The Talking Class Gets A Job

They will be working full time at the Problem Zoo

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

May 21, 2026

Note: I give full credit to the DataRepublican for the original story found here on Substack.

The original article, and the genesis of this one, is a sprawling investigative-style essay arguing that a permanent “democracy infrastructure” has quietly emerged in America — not as a formal conspiracy, but as an interconnected ecosystem of nonprofits, foundations, civic groups, election organizations, media initiatives, donor networks, and institutional actors that increasingly function as a standing managerial class.

The piece centers heavily on a 2022 paper by Carnegie Endowment fellow Rachel Kleinfeld titled “Five Strategies to Support U.S. Democracy.” The author treats this paper almost like an instruction manual. The argument is that Kleinfeld was not merely theorizing abstractly about democratic resilience, but describing operational strategies that were then adopted by organizations where she or her allies already held advisory or governance roles.

The article maps out five broad “strategies”:

• reshaping Republican primaries through ranked-choice voting and open-primary reforms,

• reducing “social demand from the right” through media and anti-disinformation efforts,

• engaging progressive activism,

• saturating civic life with NGO infrastructure,

• and using litigation, ethics complaints, and professional sanctions as accountability mechanisms.

From there, the piece constructs a huge institutional web:

• Unite America,

• Protect Democracy,

• States United,

• Freedom House,

• Democracy Funders Network,

• the National Endowment for Democracy,

• the National Civic League,

• More Perfect,

• the Trust for Civic Life,

• America250,

• and dozens more.

The essay’s key insight is not that these groups meet secretly in smoke-filled rooms. It explicitly says this is “not a conspiracy.” Its claim is subtler: once organizations share funding streams, ideological assumptions, personnel overlap, strategic language, and common timelines, they begin operating like a coordinated organism even without direct command-and-control.

The symbolic centerpiece is America’s 250th anniversary in 2026. The author argues that the semiquincentennial has become a convergence point for thousands of civic organizations promoting themes like:

• civic trust,

• democracy renewal,

• bridging divides,

• trusted information,

• civic engagement,

• national service,

• and “reimagining the American narrative.”

The article sees this as the emergence of a permanent “standing army” of civic-management institutions — an enduring layer of professionals, nonprofits, consultants, donor networks, democracy strategists, and social coordinators designed to shape political culture long after any one election cycle ends.

And that’s where the article becomes most revealing — though perhaps not in the way the author intended.

Because after all the maps, boards, grants, summits, initiatives, frameworks, coalitions, hubs, declarations, advisory councils, and alignment strategies, one thing remains oddly elusive:

What exactly is the destination?

That absence is striking. The language of the ecosystem is overwhelmingly managerial:

• resilience,

• civic health,

• engagement,

• trust,

• alignment,

• bridge-building,

• democratic renewal,

• coordination,

• belonging.

These are not destination words. They are maintenance words.

That’s the tell.

The article unintentionally documents the full flowering of what might be called the Talking Class: a professional-managerial ecosystem whose primary output is not tangible production — not steel, energy, housing, medicine, engines, or factories — but process itself.

Conversation about conversation.

Coordination about coordination.

Bob looked over the whole thing and said:
“Looks like the Department of Talking About Stuff finally found full employment.”

An expanding layer of facilitators, moderators, civic-health consultants, democracy fellows, engagement strategists, trust architects, and social mediators whose role is to continuously manage legitimacy and social cohesion.

The problem is not necessarily bad intent. Many participants probably sincerely believe institutional distrust and polarization are dangerous. But structurally, ecosystems like this naturally perpetuate themselves:

• grants create staff,

• staff create programs,

• programs create conferences,

• conferences create networks,

• networks justify new grants.

And because the outputs are intangible — “trust,” “engagement,” “resilience,” “civic health” — success becomes difficult to falsify. If polarization worsens, the answer is rarely that the framework failed. The answer becomes:

more coordination,
more intervention,
more funding,
more infrastructure.

In other words: Problem Zoo on steroids.

Bob:
“The zoo always needs another zookeeper.”

A confident civilization tends to orient itself around verbs like:

• build,

• invent,

• produce,

• defend,

• discover,

• explore.

A managerial civilization increasingly speaks in verbs like:

• facilitate,

• align,

• convene,

• moderate,

• sustain,

• steward.

That tonal shift may be more important than any one nonprofit or donor network.

Bob:
“One group built bridges. The other group schedules webinars about bridge equity.”

The article thinks it is exposing a hidden command structure. What it may actually be exposing is something stranger:

a civilization drifting from production toward administration, from confidence toward management, and from shared purpose toward permanent therapeutic supervision.

For more on the Problem Zoo, please read my original story.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Keynote Breakfast with CNN’s Scott Jennings | Texas Policy Summit 2026

Note from Jim:

Scott Jennings understands something the modern Right is finally beginning to articulate clearly: this is no longer merely a disagreement over policy. It is increasingly a battle over whether dissent itself will be tolerated.

That is the chunk of this speech.

The speech is not fundamentally about “the West,” although that is the banner Jennings flies throughout the address. Nor is it really about Trump, CNN, media bias, immigration, or gender politics individually. Those are supporting pieces.

The core argument is much simpler — and much more powerful:

The modern Left is no longer primarily trying to persuade its opponents. It is trying to intimidate them into silence.

Once you see that, the entire speech reorganizes itself.

The references to:

• censorship,

• cancellation,

• activist mobs,

• lawfare,

• media coordination,

• impeachment,

• institutional pressure,

• social coercion,

• and political violence

…are all pointing at the same underlying mechanism.

Jennings is telling conservatives:
“Notice how much energy is now being spent trying to make you afraid to speak plainly.”

That is why the audience responded so strongly.

People can feel this pressure intuitively:

• at work,

• online,

• in schools,

• in corporations,

• in media,

• and sometimes even inside their own families.

The fear of saying the “wrong thing” has itself become part of modern political life.

Jennings’ speech functions psychologically as permission to stop flinching.

That is why the repeated “defending the West” language worked in the room. It was not merely philosophical or historical. It was moral framing. It transformed ordinary political disagreement into a defense of civilization itself — and more importantly, into a defense of the right to continue speaking openly without intimidation.

His key line may have been this:

“When they try to silence you, it’s because they know they cannot beat your ideas.”

That is the spine.

And it explains why the speech feels bigger than a normal conservative conference address. Jennings is not merely arguing that conservatives are correct. He is arguing that the increasing effort to suppress disagreement is itself evidence of institutional weakness and ideological insecurity.

That is a very different claim.

Importantly, Jennings is not delivering these arguments from the safety of an ideologically friendly media bubble. He walks nightly into one of the most hostile environments in American television — CNN panels where conservative views are often interrupted, mocked, reframed, or treated as presumptively illegitimate before they are fully expressed. The audience understands this intuitively. That is part of why Jennings has become so popular. He is not merely arguing conservative positions. He is visibly refusing intimidation in real time.

The speech also quietly explains Trump’s continued appeal better than most analysts do. Trump’s supporters often interpret attacks against him not simply as attacks against one man, but as attacks against anyone unwilling to comply culturally, linguistically, or politically with elite institutional expectations.

Jennings understands this instinctively.

That is why he framed the current moment not as:
Left vs Right.

But increasingly as:
Speech vs intimidation.
Confidence vs coercion.
Citizens vs institutional pressure.

He rambles at times because this is live-room politics, not essay writing. He is reading cadence, applause, tension, and emotional temperature in real time. But underneath the performance is a very coherent emotional argument:

“They are trying to make you afraid to speak honestly.
Do not surrender to it.”

That is why the speech landed.

And, by the way, we here at Reynolds will never stop speaking honestly.

Summary

· Scott Jennings frames the current political moment as a civilizational contest over whether core Western values endure.

· He argues that conservatives must defend free speech, rule of law, individual responsibility, and faith-based moral order against an increasingly radical opposition.

· Jennings says the modern left is no longer merely policy-adversarial, but institutionally aligned across media, bureaucracy, courts, and activist networks.

· He characterizes recent anti-law-enforcement unrest as organized, well-funded, and part of a broader anti-American, anti-Western campaign.

· He contends that intimidation tactics arise when opponents are losing the argument on substance, and calls for sustained conservative engagement in politics, media, culture, and education.

· Jennings presents the Trump-era strategy as shifting from absorbing institutional pressure to politically overwhelming it through speed, clarity, and execution.

· He credits Texas conservatives for translating principles into governance outcomes, describing the state as a working model of growth, freedom, and practical policy application.

· His closing message is that this is no longer routine partisan conflict, but a long-term fight over national identity, cultural continuity, and the future of the West.

Scott Jennings’ Breakfast Address

[after introductory remarks]

If you’ve seen any of these debates that I’m having on CNN, you know that I’m usually operating under a strict seven-second rule before someone starts interrupting me. And so having a full runway this morning feels a little dangerous. I’m going to be honest with you. We’ll see what happens.

In all seriousness though, it is a privilege to be the black sheep of CNN. And the thing about being the black sheep of something is that no one expects you to graze quietly. And so for as long as I am allowed to be in the field, I plan to speak my mind and to do the most American thing that you can do. Argue and debate.

I will argue for middle America. I will argue for rural America. I will argue for conservative values. I will argue for normalcy.

And I will argue for common sense. On that you have my word. And as part of this push for common sense, I actually wrote a book about it last year. It was called A Revolution of Common Sense. And it was inspired by something that President Trump said in his inaugural address. You might remember last January.

He said we’re going to have a revolution of common sense in this country. And I was sitting on the set at CNN when he said that and I turned to Van Jones. And I said, Van, that would make an amazing book title. And he said, please don’t. So I did.

I had an idea and I decided to write a book. And I went over to see the president at the White House. Truthfully, I didn’t know him really. I talked about him a lot on TV, but we didn’t have a personal relationship.

So I went over to the White House and opened the door and I was expecting to see him but opened the door to the Oval Office. And he was in there behind the Resolute Desk and the entire cabinet was in there. And the senior staff was in there. It was a full room.

And he opened the door and he looked up and he looked at me and he goes, you look terrific. I mean, you look good on TV, but you actually look terrific. Not as good as you, sir. Have a seat next to the other Scott. Bessent, the Treasury Secretary.

So I go in and they’re having this meeting and he’s got Bessent and Lutnick and they’re talking about tariffs and stuff and he’s got Rubio and Witkoff and Radcliffe and they’re discussing national security stuff and he’s got all these, I mean, he’s conducting like six meetings at the same time. And I remember thinking to myself, oh, and in the middle of it all, this kid kicks open the door and comes running in and says Mr. President, they’re still using paper straws in the White House mess.

They must have not gotten my orders yet. I thought I have no idea who was running the White House the last four years, but I sure as heck know who’s running it right now. It was an, it was an amazing kickoff to writing this book. I’m sitting there and Trump, Trump says, does everybody here know Scott? He’s like our best guy.

“He knows how to defend me without getting fired by CNN, which is no small talent. And then, to be honest, Scott used to be a little bit average, but then I came along and now he’s terrific. “ I told the president that day that I thought somebody should write a book about his first hundred days in office because all the usual suspects will come along and write the books and tell everybody how terrible everything is.

But I said, you know, somebody who voted for you three times and appreciates what you’re trying to do to rescue the country ought to have a crack at it. So we got started on it about halfway through. I didn’t know what to put on the cover and I had the publisher mock up three ideas and I sent it over to the White House and I get a three-word email back. He hates it.

So I asked him, what’s your favorite picture of yourself? So if you’ve seen the book a revolution of common sense, the picture on the cover is literally his favorite picture of himself. So I finished writing the book. It comes out in November and I take it to the Oval Office the night before it hits bookstores and I said, as promised Mr.President, I’ve delivered this book to you and for you by Christmas. Here’s your copy and he looks at the book and he goes, “this is the greatest cover of a book that anybody has ever written. No one will read your book. They’ll only wanted for the cover.” So I worked really hard on it.

Anyway, we made the New York Times bestseller list, not easy for a conservative to do but we did it because I think there are people out there who want to hear the story. The story of the book is interesting. When JB knows this, when you’re a Republican president, there are colluding interests in Washington DC that work together to try to overwhelm you.

Media, bureaucrats, Democrats, and activist judges. They all collude and work together to try to overwhelm you and to some degree, that’s what they did to President Trump in his first term. And the story of the book is this time around it would be different. The decision was made.

They will not overwhelm us we will overwhelm them. And to me, when you look back on the first year and a couple of months in office, I think that is exactly what has happened. So if you get a chance to read it, thank you. It’s cost a lot less than it did when it came out.

So now’s a good time to buy. It’s an honor to be here this morning in Texas with all these conservatives because you all do more than just talk. You find ways to turn the abstract into the actionable, which is a big deal right now because all across this country, people are being told that free markets don’t work, that limited government is outdated, that the only answer to our problems is more control from Washington or from government at any level.

And we are faced with a political opposition right now that is more comfortable with socialism than they are with capitalism. And as this debate rages, the American people look to Texas and they can see clearly just how lost the left truly is. They look here and they see growth, they see opportunity, they see freedom that actually functions in people’s daily lives. And this contrast isn’t by accident.

It is the result of the people in this room who are willing to take ideas seriously enough to implement them. And from where I sit, that makes you all one of the most important forces in the country right now. Because I think we’re not just debating policy anymore.

This is about our way of life and the entire civilization that we call Western civilization. Will it survive? This is the question I ask myself every day. And that’s what I want to talk to you all about this morning. It is my sincerest belief that everyone in this room, whether you know it or not, is doing nothing less than fighting for the future of Western civilization.

I’ve been involved in politics now for a long time, 26 years, over half my life spent in service of the conservative cause. Candidates have come and gone. The issues of the day have evolved over the years and goodness knows our opponents have changed. We now face the most radical, anti-American, political opposition that any of us could have imagined.

It’s scary to me actually just how much the liberal movement has been hijacked by the enemies of the West, by those who believe the American founding to be rotten at its core, that it should be ripped out, root, and branch. And because of that, our politics is now more than ever a fight for the survival of the West. And in this fight, we seed no ground, not in politics, of course, not in business, not in education, not in culture, and certainly, not in my arena, which is the media.

We are all, all of us, on the front lines of a fight that will determine whether our children and grandchildren will grow up in a world where the values of the West persevere, or whether they grow up in a world shrouded in darkness under ideologies and belief systems that are the enemies of human liberty. To say that we are defending the West is to say that we are standing up for the values that built the free world. Faith, reason, liberty, the inherent worth of every human being.

The West is not just a place on a map. It is a set of ideas, born in Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, and carried forward by generations who believed in truth, individual responsibility, and the rule of law. It is the civilization that produced the Bible, the university, and the Constitution.

And it taught us that freedom is sacred because it comes from God and not from government. To defend the West is to defend the right to speak freely. To raise your families in peace, to live by moral conviction rather than by mob coercion. Our movement, our voices, everybody in this room, we all make up a community.

One of the last remaining in America that is unapologetically dedicated to preserving and passing down the moral and spiritual inheritance of the West. We are not arguing my friends about politics as usual anymore. We are not just disagreeing about tax rates and healthcare plans.

We are fighting for the soul of this nation and the survival of our very civilization. This is what keeps me up at night: the basics of our society are under constant attack. The radical left, the enemies of the West, are going after anyone who builds anything, believes anything, or stands for anything. Already this year we have seen radicals on the streets of Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and other places making clear that nothing short of violent confrontation and mayhem will satisfy them. Why?

Because they wish to exist in a state of secession from the union and in a state of secession from Western civilization. Tim Walz himself, the biggest buffoon in American politics, referred to Minnesota as the new Fort Sumter, openly fantasizing about a new American civil war, people like Walz and many others in his party, do not believe in national borders, they do not believe in national laws, they do not believe in any sort of legal order, and to enforce this anti-American and anti-Western worldview, they are comfortable unleashing legions of political vigilantes backed up by news media and cultural celebrities who I think have blood on their hands.

They don’t care how many brainwashed people get hurt or die. They are bloodthirsty and they can no longer contain their disdain for the moral contours of the West and of American democracy. Let’s stop pretending that this was about legitimate protest. It is well organized and it is well-funded by the enemies of the West and the enemies of the United States.

It is about tearing down the United States itself. What we’re seeing today in the form of these anti-law enforcement protests has worn many costumes in recent years. Black Lives Matter, free Palestine, and now this all-out assault on federal law enforcement. Different costumes, but the same anti-American, anti-Western actors performing in the same sick play.

The theme of this tragedy is simple. America is bad. Destroy America. I think we have a nullification crisis on our hands. There are Democrats who want to nullify federal laws because they don’t like who the president is.

There are judges who want to nullify the authority of the president of the United States. There are juries who want to nullify the rights of crime victims to seek justice when you look at the pantheon of violent attacks that have taken place in this country. It’s going on for months against our Jewish brothers and sisters, against private companies like Tesla, against federal law enforcement, against our friend Charlie, against anyone who tries to stop them from tearing down America and tearing down Western civilization.

Their message to you all is very clear. Shut up or we will shut you up, but when they tell us to shut up, when they begin to talk over us, it’s because they know they’re losing the argument. When they try to silence you, it’s because they know they cannot beat your ideas with their own.

And when they resort to violence, it’s because they know they’ve already lost the debate. People ask me all the time, what is the Republican party in the conservative movement stand for right now? Hasn’t it changed a lot since you came along a quarter of a century ago? Sure, there have been some changes.

Leaders come and go, they all have their imprint that they leave on our platform. But to me, the answer today is pretty simple. We are the party in the movement that defends the West. We defend it at home and we defend it abroad, even as Europe succumbs to an immigration crisis that has crippled its domestic politics and rendered it nearly useless in this fight to preserve Western civilization.

We’re the movement that can tell you the difference between a man and a woman. Look at what happened in the Supreme Court and in the halls of Congress recently. The smartest people on the American left were sent to testify. They could not answer two simple questions.

What is a woman and can men get pregnant? Totally stumped in Washington just a few weeks ago. We’re the party that thinks American citizens should come before illegal aliens? Were the party that believes being admitted to America is a privilege that it should require assimilation into our culture and acceptance of our legal framework.

We’re still the people that thinks you should keep more of what you earn. We still believe in protecting human life, born and unborn. Were the people protecting your free speech. And as the president has told the world, this movement is simply the revolution of common sense.

Now as you all know, I’m a strong defender of these values on CNN and it wrankles some of the other guests, of course. Sometimes people ask me, Scott, do you get along with your co-workers? Are you actually friends off the set? The answer to that question is yes. Some of us are.

Not all of us. Some of us are. But for a few of us, we open our hearts and our ears to each other before we open our mouths, which is a good rule for punditry, but it’s also a good lesson for life. I tend to gravitate to the people who argue in good faith and good humor.

They do exist, but I do encounter people who are angry, who use the language of hate, and you’ve heard all of it before, they’re all too quick to call you all racist, fascist, Nazi. So as we’re building this coalition of common sense, what is happening to the political opposition? Why are they so angry?

We do, after all, live in the greatest country ever devised. It’s because they’re headed in the exact opposite direction. If we are the movement of common sense, they have for some reason embraced becoming the movement of uncommon nonsense. And I’ll just say out loud what everybody in this room knows to be true.

The left, the democratic party has completely lost its mind. I’ll sum it up for you. They care more about pronouns than paychecks. They fight every day to put boys in girls’ locker rooms. Their principal constituency are illegal aliens and not American citizens.

They are hostile to those of us who believe in the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our laws and culture. They have become the party in the movement of weirdos and scolds of people who think your five-year-old needs to know more about gender fluidity than phonics. They want to control everything.

They want government making decisions that you and your family should be making for yourselves. And if you disagree, if you speak up as a matter of politics or even as a matter of faith, well, we saw what happened to Charlie. We saw what nearly happened to our president in Butler, Pennsylvania.

And today, we see the American left promising retribution on anyone who supports law and order, anyone who has supported our president, and even anyone who supports the American union itself. Make no mistake. They mean it. They will impeach the president if they gain control of Congress.

They will seek to punish anyone who worked with President Trump on anything. Their base demands it, and they are powerless to stop this out of control, angry mob. Here is something that you must understand about the left. They hate success. They hate it when people make it on their own.

They hate it when you don’t need them. Think about what they teach our kids. That America was founded on racism. That our country is rotten at its core. That capitalism is evil. That hard work is for suckers.

That merit is a dirty word. That the nuclear family is oppressive. Especially to women. That faith is for idiots and robes for people who are from Kentucky and Texas.

They run people for the United States Senate who think there are six genders. That we can solve the climate crisis by taking away all of your bacon. Is it any wonder that Charlie spent his life on college campuses trying to reach young people? He saw what was happening.

I think when that shooter pulled the trigger and killed my friend in Utah, he thought he was ending a movement. He thought if he killed Charlie Kirk, he could kill what Charlie stood for. That the rest of us would get the message. That we would heed the warning.

Silence yourselves or we will do it for you. I think that’s what he thought. Certainly, what the people who cheered on the assassination thought and make no mistake. There were thousands who cheered it on. But in trying to silence one voice, I think they created thousands.

And trying to end a conversation that day, I think they started millions. And that is the thing we learned about faith and freedom. You can’t kill them. You can try to suppress it and you can try to silence it. But it always finds a way like water finding cracks in the dam.

Now I’ve got four boys back home in Kentucky, 16, 12, 10, and 8. A lot of chaos in the Jennings household. Four boys, we have 35 laying hens in the backyard. Anybody in here have chickens? Never get a rooster as all I can tell you. We got a rooster by accident.

They crow all day and they constantly sexually harass their co-workers. Now we named our rooster Governor Cuomo and you should have been there the day that we impeached the governor. It was quite a scene in the backyard. Anyway, we thrive on chaos in the Jennings household.

But for these four boys, and I’m sure you have these thoughts as well, when I think about their future, I don’t want them to just grow up in a rich country. I want them to grow up in a good country that believes in truth, that protects free speech, that celebrates family, and the blessings and societal stability that flows from it. A country where common sense is a virtue and not a vice.

A country that can tell the difference between right and wrong. A country that chooses good over evil. A country that knows how to side with civilization over barbarism. And make no mistake. We have seen barbarism of the worst kind in this world over the last few years, perpetrated against the people of Israel, the Jewish people, and look what happened in the West.

Our media, our politicians, people who ought to know better, sided with the barbarians. It’s disgusting. And even today, you get the sense when you turn on your television that a lot of people on the left are rooting for bad outcomes for the American military because they’re more invested in hurting Trump than they are in rooting for America.

But this is what every conservative must understand. Division amongst ourselves puts the West at stake and it puts America at risk. The left is unified in its hatred of Trump and its hatred for the fundamentals of America’s founding. In its belief that it is time for the cosmic scales to be balanced against the supposed oppressors of this world, in which they include everyone in this room, in case you didn’t know.

As we battle the left and as we battle for the soul of this nation, I’ll tell you what else I want from my boys and I want it for all of your children and grandchildren. I want them to grow up in a country that understands where our rights come from. They do not come from government, they do not come from the Constitution, they do not come from the founding fathers as much as we love them all.

They come from God, period, full stop. Now this used to be obvious to everyone. Today it’s controversial. The left wants you to believe that your rights or whatever they decide to give you, that’s so that they can take them away easily. Government gives you the right to do something. Well, government can take it away.

But if your rights come from God, this is something different entirely. No politician can vote them away. No judge can rule them out of existence. No mob can shout them down.

We answer to a higher power when it comes to our rights as human beings as God’s children. And this is why the left is so hostile to faith. It’s not really about church services or prayer in schools. It’s about power. They need you to believe that they are the highest authority in your life. But people of faith know better.

We know there is something above the state, something more important than politics, something that judges the judges. When you understand that your rights are God-given, you cannot be intimidated. When you know that you’ll answer to a higher authority than some bureaucrat, you cannot be bullied into silence.

When you realize that truth isn’t determined by polling or politics, but rather by something a [objective], you can stand firm even when it feels like the rest of the world is going insane or that everyone else in the TV studio has lost their minds. This is the foundation of our freedom. It is what makes America different and it is what they are trying to destroy.

We have to be real about what we’re facing. Many on the left have gone from disagreeing with us to trying to destroy us. At a minimum, they want to shut you up and shut you down forever. They’ll throw you in jail in Europe right now if you post the wrong thing on Facebook. Here?

Oh, you think it can’t happen here? Here? They censored you? They tried to lock up your president.

They manipulated information that you could see on the doorstep of an election. And now Charlie’s gone. Why? For politics, for power, for this uncommon nonsense. It is not politics as usual.

It is something far darker happening in our world. So you may be asking, what do we do about it? My first piece of advice is you have to wake up every morning prepared to tell hard truths over comfortable lies. This is essentially my job on CNN. To stand, to thwart the mob in defense of America and in defense of the West.

Second, I would encourage you all to teach your children to think for themselves and to not accept the brainwashing of the left. You have to show everyone in your life that America is worth fighting for, with your words, with your votes and with your courage. And more than anything, we have to teach our children and everyone in our spheres of influence to love their country, because you know they are being bombarded every day by people who are teaching them to hate it.

A nation of young people learning to love America terrifies the left, because they really need compliance more than they need questions. They need sheep more than they need lions. But I think Americans are hungry for the truth. I think when you give them a choice between being victims or victors, they will choose victory.

If you give them a choice between dependence and dignity, they will choose dignity. And if you give them a choice between loving America and hating it. I think they will choose love, because we are a nation of patriots. People want to love their country, and we just need leaders like the people in this room to reclaim and proclaim the freedom on which this country was founded.

So as I close this morning, I want to thank you again for having me. It is an honor to be here with so many patriots. And I want you all to remember that defending Western civilization is not an act of nostalgia. It is an act of stewardship. We are all heirs to a legacy purchased by the courage of those who came before us, men and women who believed that truth was worth dying for and that freedom was worth defending.

To paraphrase the lion of the West, Winston Churchill. The flame of Christian civilization cannot be extinguished. It may flicker, but it will never go out. Our mission, your mission, is to spread light and truth in a confused world that desperately needs our clarity into a divided culture that needs your courage and into a dark age that very much longs for the light.

If we remain faithful to God and we remain steadfast in our defense of the truths that built this great civilization, our best days, the world’s best days are still ahead of us. When it comes to defending the West, failure is not an option. Thank you all for having me. God bless Texas.

God bless the United States of America.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

.

The Mechanism Is Not in the Details

AOC, Narrative Power, and the Death of Follow-Up Questions

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

May 17, 2026

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is frequently criticized as uninformed, historically weak, or intellectually shallow.

That analysis is too shallow itself.

Her real power has very little to do with facts.

It is certainty.

Not ordinary political confidence either. Narrative certainty. Emotional certainty. The kind delivered with wide eyes, urgent cadence, and the unmistakable tone of somebody revealing hidden truth the powerful never wanted you to see.

AOC does not simply make arguments. She performs conviction.

And in modern politics, conviction often outranks comprehension.

That is why so many people focus on whether her statements are historically accurate while missing the more important question entirely:

Why do millions of listeners stop caring whether they are accurate at all?

Recently she declared that “Black Americans created democracy,” and separately framed the American Revolution as a revolt against “the billionaires of their time.”

Historically, both claims collapse under mild atmospheric pressure.

Democracy developed over thousands of years through Athens, Rome, English common law, representative government, Enlightenment philosophy, and constitutional design. Likewise, the American Revolution was not a colonial version of Occupy Wall Street. Many of its leading figures — Hancock, Washington, Robert Morris — were themselves wealthy elites arguing against centralized imperial power, taxation without representation, and political subordination.

But factual correction almost misses the phenomenon.

The larger issue is what might be called Narrative Substitution Syndrome: the replacement of factual hierarchy with emotionally satisfying storytelling.

Under this system, history is no longer examined carefully. It is emotionally sorted.

Oppressor.
Oppressed.
Privileged.
Marginalized.
Colonizer.
Victim.

Every historical event gets translated into the same moral screenplay regardless of complexity, contradiction, or historical context.

And AOC is extraordinarily skilled at delivering the lines.

Not because she sounds scholarly. Quite the opposite. She speaks with the intimate confidence of somebody letting you in on secret moral knowledge. She sounds less like a historian and more like the emotionally intelligent friend who finally explains why the world feels unfair.

That is enormously persuasive to people who want emotional coherence more than historical precision.

And to be fair, she likely believes every word she says.

That matters.

A practiced liar creates suspicion. A sincere believer lowers defenses.

The audience thinks:
“She really means it.”
“She seems authentic.”
“She feels compassionate.”

The emotional impression arrives first. Verification never arrives at all.

This is not unique to AOC. She is simply one of the clearest modern examples of a broader cultural transformation where performance increasingly substitutes for mastery.

The internet accelerated all of it.

Now everyone is a historian, economist, constitutional scholar, and geopolitical strategist five minutes after reading a thread written by somebody with a cartoon avocado profile picture.

Confidence scales faster than competence.

And modern media rewards emotional fluency far more than intellectual rigor. The person who pauses, qualifies, distinguishes, or admits complexity loses airtime to the person speaking with cinematic certainty.

But there is another reason AOC’s style works so effectively:

She is almost never truly challenged.

• Not seriously.

• Not repeatedly.

• Not by hostile interviewers.

• Not by neutral moderators willing to drill into specifics.

Her political ecosystem protects the performance. The interviews are usually soft. The podcasts are friendly. The hosts are ideologically aligned. Follow-up questions are rare. Emotional framing substitutes for adversarial scrutiny.

And this matters more than people realize.

Many public figures appear brilliant inside protected ecosystems. The difficulty comes when they leave the greenhouse.

A congressional district is one thing.

A national race is another.

Eventually the audience expands beyond emotionally sympathetic listeners. Eventually the questions become sharper. Eventually somebody interrupts the narrative and says:

“Okay. Walk me through that claim specifically.”

That is where performance politics often encounters its ceiling.

Because specificity is the enemy of narrative intoxication.

Once claims must survive sustained scrutiny, contradiction, historical detail, and unscripted pressure, emotional fluency alone is no longer enough.

And that is likely the central political limitation AOC will eventually encounter if elevated into broader national contention.

Her style thrives in affirmation environments.

But national politics — especially presidential politics — eventually introduces cross-examination.

And cross-examination changes everything.

The deeper issue here extends well beyond one congresswoman. A constitutional republic cannot survive indefinitely if public persuasion becomes detached from factual discipline altogether. Eventually citizens stop asking:
“Is it true?”

And begin asking only:
“Does it feel morally satisfying?”

At that point politics stops functioning as democratic deliberation and starts functioning as narrative therapy.

Bob leaned back in his chair.

“People think propaganda always sounds like a dictator screaming from a balcony.”

He shrugged.

“Sometimes it sounds like a concerned bartender explaining injustice with really expressive eyebrows.”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

My Bifurcated Life

Read more

Bad Calls Kill People: Why Judges Need Their Own ABS System

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

May 12, 2026

The strongest arguments are not the ones protected from scrutiny.
They are the ones that survive it.

That sounds obvious. But when it comes to the American judiciary, we have built large parts of the system around the opposite principle:
maximum discretion,
minimum accountability,
and almost total insulation from downstream consequences.

Meanwhile, the public watches the same pattern unfold over and over again:

• repeat offender arrested

• repeat offender released

• repeat offender escalates

• innocent person harmed or killed

• institutional language becomes vague and procedural afterward

At some point, people stop seeing isolated mistakes.

They start seeing a system problem.

The public increasingly asks a very simple question:

Why is nearly every profession affecting human life subjected to escalating performance accountability systems — except judges making high-risk release decisions?

Pilots are monitored.
Surgeons are reviewed.
Police wear body cameras.
Engineers sign liability documents.
Even Major League Baseball umpires now face real-time performance correction.

Which brings us to one of the more fascinating developments of 2026:
MLB’s Automated Ball-Strike challenge system.

Baseball did not replace umpires with robots.

It did something smarter.

It introduced visible accountability.

Players can challenge calls.
Technology reviews the pitch instantly.
Missed calls become measurable.
Patterns become visible.
Accuracy improves.

The game survives.
In fact, the game improves.

And fans love it. Why? Because it feels more fair now.

Bob put it more simply:
“Funny how people tighten up when somebody starts keeping score.”

Exactly.

The principle matters far beyond baseball.

Measurement changes behavior.

In software engineering, my field, we call this stress-testing the weakest link. You do not wait for catastrophic production failure before examining flawed assumptions. You apply adversarial pressure early, while corrections are still possible.

That is how resilient systems are built.

Modern criminal justice increasingly feels designed in the opposite direction.

Judges make life-altering release decisions using:

• criminal histories

• prior failures to appear

• violent-offense records

• parole violations

• risk assessments

• escalating behavioral patterns

Then the headlines arrive.

Repeat offender released.
Woman assaulted.
Cop shot.
Elderly man shoved onto subway tracks.
Family killed by habitual drunk driver.
Child raped by predator already known to the system.

Then comes the institutional cleanup language afterward:
“complex circumstances”
“balancing equities”
“judicial discretion”
“insufficient detention authority”

The victims absorb the consequences permanently.

The judge usually absorbs a press release.

This is not really a debate about punishment versus compassion.

It is a debate about feedback loops.

Healthy systems require feedback.
Unhealthy systems suppress it.

And right now, many Americans believe parts of the judiciary have become dangerously insulated from outcome-based feedback.

The public understands something many elite institutions increasingly struggle to admit:

Patterns matter.

If one violent offender slips through the cracks, people understand that.

If the same jurisdiction repeatedly releases escalating violent offenders who repeatedly reoffend, people stop calling that compassion.

They start calling it negligence.

The statistics help explain why.

Rearrest rates among released offenders remain extraordinarily high over time, particularly among repeat and violent offenders. Meanwhile, many jurisdictions continue experimenting with:

• reduced bail standards

• early-release policies

• downgraded charging

• reduced sentencing

• catch-and-release frameworks

The public keeps hearing the same promises:
rehabilitation,
equity,
reform,
decarceration.

Then they watch the same names cycle back through the headlines.

At some point, citizens begin asking whether the system is optimizing for public safety at all.

Critics immediately invoke “judicial independence.”

Fair enough.
Let’s address that directly.

Judicial independence matters.
A healthy judiciary cannot function under constant partisan intimidation.

But independence and total insulation are not the same thing.

No serious system can repeatedly release escalating violent offenders, watch innocent people get hurt afterward, and still pretend the decision-maker bears no meaningful responsibility.

And despite media portrayals, accountability proposals are no longer fringe concepts.

The 2025 JAIL Act and the Judicial Accountability for Public Safety Act both attempted to carve out narrow civil-liability exposure for grossly negligent release decisions involving repeat violent offenders.

Not broad ideological punishment.
Not political retaliation.
Targeted accountability tied to objective public-risk outcomes.

That distinction matters.

Now opponents argue this would create defensive judging:

• maximum sentencing

• over-incarceration

• “cover-your-ass” rulings

Some of that concern is legitimate.

Human behavior is probabilistic.
Not every released offender reoffends.
Not every high-risk defendant escalates.

But that argument cuts both ways.

Right now, many citizens believe the system suffers from the opposite distortion:
systematic underweighting of repeat-risk behavior until tragedy occurs.

And unlike baseball, the consequences here are not blown playoff games.

They are women raped by predators already cycling through the courts.
Police officers shot by suspects with endless prior arrests.
Families buried because habitual offenders were given “one more chance.”
Neighborhoods slowly surrendered to people the system keeps insisting are low-risk.

Bob looked at one particularly ugly repeat-offender case and shook his head:
“If your dog bites five people, they take the dog away. But some judges keep turning loose violent felons like they’re handing out parking validations.”

Crude?
Maybe.

But the public mood is moving rapidly in that direction.

The deeper issue here is institutional asymmetry.

Modern criminal justice heavily audits procedural fairness toward defendants while often weakly auditing downstream public-risk outcomes.

That imbalance is becoming politically unsustainable.

And technology is quietly making the old insulation model harder to maintain.

Today we can track:

• recidivism

• release outcomes

• violent escalation patterns

• repeat-offender trajectories

• judicial release histories

The data infrastructure already exists.

What does not yet exist is the political willingness to expose the patterns publicly and systematically.

That is where the ABS analogy becomes powerful.

The goal is not robotic sentencing.

The goal is visible accountability pressure.

Possible reforms are not difficult to imagine:

• public judicial outcome dashboards

• violent recidivism tracking by release category

• mandatory written findings for high-risk releases

• catastrophic-failure review boards

• stronger recall mechanisms for elected judges

• narrow civil liability for gross negligence

• public transparency databases

None of this eliminates judicial discretion.

It simply subjects discretion to measurable downstream review.

Which is exactly what modern high-consequence professions increasingly face everywhere else.

That is the real issue here:
institutional durability.

An exception-seeking mind notices patterns quickly.

Insulated institutions tend to optimize for internal approval rather than external resilience. Over time, negative feedback gets moralized away, criticism becomes socially dangerous, and measurable failure patterns accumulate until public trust starts collapsing.

The judiciary is not immune to this dynamic.

No institution is.

And the public’s patience is clearly running thinner.

Bad calls on the ball field cost runs.

Bad calls on the bench cost lives.

The public has been keeping score for a long time now.

It may finally be time for the judges to do the same.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The Exception-Seeking Mind

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

May 11, 2026

The strongest arguments are not the ones protected from scrutiny.

They are the ones that survive scrutiny.

That sounds obvious. But modern political discourse increasingly operates in the opposite direction.

Today, many public arguments are not designed to withstand adversarial testing. They are designed to create emotional cohesion inside like-minded groups. Once you understand that distinction, you begin reading public arguments very differently.

To keep this from becoming another abstract “theory of media” essay, let’s walk through several very simple examples. My goal here is not to make readers cynical about everything they hear. It is to explain how modern narratives are often constructed — and why some collapse so quickly once subjected to real pressure-testing.

As for me, I have increasingly realized that I read arguments differently than many people do. I am constantly scanning for omission, asymmetry, hidden incentives, and structural weakness. In software engineering, systems fail at their weakest points, not at their strongest marketing claims. Human arguments are often the same way.

I have become, for better or worse, an exception-seeking machine.

That means I instinctively ask:

• What is missing?

• What assumptions are hidden?

• What evidence would weaken this claim?

• What incentives are operating underneath the rhetoric?

• What happens downstream?

• What are they NOT telling me?

This mindset did not emerge from politics. It emerged from engineering.

In software development, large projects are broken into multiple functional groups:

- planners

- architects

- coders

- testers

- rollout teams

- support teams

Traditionally, there is a naturally adversarial relationship between coders and testers. The coders build the system. The testers try to break it. Testers are essentially professional skeptics. Their entire job is to identify flaws before customers do.

Most development teams tolerate testing because they have to.

I was different.

As a designer and development lead, I would actually walk into the testing department and push them harder.

“You aren’t trying hard enough.”

I wanted more bugs found. Not fewer.

Why?

Because every undiscovered flaw becomes exponentially more expensive later:

- financially

- operationally

- reputationally

- politically

A bug found during development is a nuisance.

A bug found in production is a disaster.

That principle extends far beyond software.

Many modern institutional narratives are built inside highly insulated environments:

- universities

- media organizations

- bureaucracies

- NGOs

- political ecosystems

- social-media consensus loops

Inside those systems, certain assumptions become socially reinforced rather than rigorously challenged. Over time, arguments become optimized for internal approval rather than external durability.

That creates brittleness.

A narrative may sound extremely polished while resting on surprisingly fragile assumptions.

Take selective omission.

Suppose a headline announces:

“Crime Falls 8% Nationwide.”

That sounds reassuring.

But an exception-seeking reader immediately asks:

• Violent crime or all crime?

• Compared to what baseline?

• Before or after a spike?

• Are fewer people reporting crimes?

• Did prosecution standards change?

• Is the decline broad or localized?

Sometimes the omitted context IS the story.

Or consider emotional priming.

A network airs an emotionally devastating story about one family harmed by immigration enforcement. The suffering may be entirely real. But if the presentation never discusses:

- wage competition

- housing strain

- labor-market distortion

- cartel trafficking

- infrastructure pressure

- long-term tradeoffs

…then the audience is not truly being asked to evaluate policy.

They are being emotionally guided toward a conclusion.

Human beings are highly vulnerable to vivid anecdotes. One emotionally powerful story can outweigh pages of statistical analysis inside the human mind.

Modern persuasion professionals understand this very well.

Then there is motive attribution:

“He opposes this policy because he hates immigrants.”

Maybe.

Or maybe he is worried about:

- labor oversupply

- wage suppression

- housing affordability

- school overcrowding

- assimilation capacity

- infrastructure strain

Once motive gets assigned prematurely, mechanism analysis usually stops. You see this technique on TV every day. Some call this mind-reading.

This is why so many political arguments today feel strangely shallow. Systems disappear. Incentives disappear. Tradeoffs disappear. Instead of debating outcomes, people begin debating imagined morality.

Compressed moral binaries work similarly.

“If you oppose this policy, you don’t care about children.”

That instantly collapses:

- tradeoffs

- implementation concerns

- second-order effects

- competing harms

- budget realities

- unintended consequences

…into emotional theater.

The purpose is not exploration.

The purpose is social pressure.

Institutional authority substitution works the same way.

“Experts say…”

Which experts?

Selected how?

Operating under what assumptions?

Against which competing experts?

Using which datasets?

Subject to what incentives?

Authority matters. Expertise matters. But expertise without adversarial testing eventually becomes fragile.

And fragility is the real theme underneath all of this.

The beef-industry consolidation story I recently wrote about is actually a useful analogy here. In software engineering, we use the term “single point of failure.” That is where one highly centralized chokepoint can disrupt an entire system.

Modern information systems increasingly behave this way too.

A handful of institutions:

- media organizations

- universities

- bureaucracies

- NGOs

- social-media ecosystems

…often reinforce one another’s assumptions until certain narratives become socially untouchable inside elite circles.

At that point, arguments may become highly polished yet strangely brittle because they were optimized for internal approval rather than hostile testing.

Then an outsider starts asking uncomfortable questions:

• What variables are missing?

• Why was this category defined this way?

• Why were competing explanations excluded?

• Why are exceptions ignored?

• Why does criticism itself seem forbidden?

Suddenly the confidence starts cracking.

This does not mean every institutional argument is false.

Far from it.

It does mean that intellectual systems, like engineering systems, require stress testing to remain healthy.

A bridge designed only to survive sunny days is not much of a bridge.

And to be fair, every ideological ecosystem has blind spots — including the Right. Conservatives can also:

- oversimplify

- emotionally tribalize

- selectively omit

- overpattern

- fall in love with emotionally satisfying narratives

No group is immune.

The difference is that some cultures tolerate adversarial testing better than others.

Healthy intellectual cultures encourage:

- recursive questioning

- counterexamples

- uncomfortable evidence

- incentive analysis

- mechanism analysis

- adversarial scrutiny

Unhealthy cultures increasingly punish these things because questioning itself begins to feel socially dangerous.

That is where real brittleness emerges.

An exception-seeking mind can absolutely become cynical if left unchecked.

But it can also become clarifying.

Because once you stop reacting primarily to how morally satisfying an argument feels — and instead begin asking how the argument itself is constructed — you start seeing modern discourse in an entirely different way.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The Four Companies Between America and Dinner

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

May 9, 2026

Most Americans know only two things about beef right now:

1. It costs too much.

2. Somebody is blaming somebody else.

That is where the public conversation usually stops.

But behind the rising steak prices and disappearing family ranches lies a much bigger story — one that touches globalization, consolidation, national resilience, supply-chain fragility, and a simple question most Americans have never really considered:

Who actually controls America’s food supply?

The answer is more concentrated than most people realize.

Today, four giant meatpacking companies control roughly 85 percent of the American beef-processing market:

- JBS

- Tyson

- Cargill

- National Beef

Two of those firms are heavily Brazilian-owned.

That did not happen overnight.

And it did not happen because somebody sat in a smoke-filled room one evening and decided to “take over beef.” The real story is more complicated, more modern, and in many ways more unsettling.

America slowly optimized itself into fragility.

The old system was messy.

Decades ago, America had a far more distributed cattle-processing network:

- regional slaughterhouses

- smaller processors

- local competition

- multiple buyers

- localized pricing ecosystems

That system was less efficient. But it was also more resilient.

Then came the age of optimization.

Over time:

- economies of scale

- environmental compliance costs

- transportation efficiencies

- Wall Street financing

- merger waves

- export globalization

- automation

- centralized logistics

…all favored larger and larger processors.

The logic looked irresistible.

A massive centralized plant could process cattle more cheaply than dozens of smaller regional operations. Investors loved the margins. Retailers loved the pricing. Economists loved the efficiency curves.

And slowly, quietly, the local system disappeared.

A fifth-generation rancher in western Kansas or eastern Colorado might still own land, still raise cattle, still work fourteen-hour days — but increasingly he was selling into a funnel controlled by a tiny number of gigantic buyers.

That changes everything.

Because a market with many sellers but very few buyers does not function like the “free market” most people imagine.

The rancher still carries enormous risk:

- weather

- feed costs

- fuel

- disease

- labor

- insurance

- regulation

- drought

But at the end of the chain, there may only be one or two economically viable processors within practical hauling distance.

At that point, bargaining power changes.

The rancher negotiates less.

He accepts terms more.

And once consolidation reaches extreme levels, the system itself begins to behave differently.

A fire at one large processing facility can ripple through national pricing.

A cyberattack on one company can disrupt supply chains across multiple states.

A labor dispute or plant closure can affect grocery prices hundreds of miles away.

Efficiency starts turning into fragility.

In software engineering — my field — we call that a ‘single point of failure.’

That is where the meat-processing industry increasingly finds itself today.

The system has become highly optimized for efficiency, but in doing so, it has also become optimized for cascading failure throughout the processing chain.

And that is exactly what we are beginning to observe.

That is why the Trump Administration’s recent investigation into meatpacking concentration is attracting attention far beyond agriculture circles.

The Department of Justice is investigating whether anti-competitive behavior exists inside the protein industry. Officials have pointed specifically to the enormous concentration ratios in beef processing and to systems that allegedly allowed processors to exchange sensitive pricing and production information.

Whether criminal conduct is ultimately found remains unknown.

But the broader structural issue is harder to dismiss:

America’s food system has become extraordinarily centralized.

And the Brazilian angle matters not because Brazil is inherently sinister, but because it highlights how globalization changed ownership itself.

Companies like JBS grew aggressively during the great consolidation era through acquisitions, scale advantages, access to financing, and international expansion. Over time, firms operating across borders accumulated enormous influence over processing capacity, export flows, and pricing leverage.

Again, this was not a Hollywood conspiracy.

It was modern capital markets doing what modern capital markets do:

rewarding scale relentlessly.

But scale has side effects.

The more centralized the system becomes:

- the fewer redundancies exist

- the more vulnerable supply chains become

- the harder it becomes for small producers to survive

- the easier coordinated behavior becomes

- the more political influence giant firms accumulate

Eventually, an uncomfortable question emerges:

At what point does efficiency begin undermining resilience?

That question now extends far beyond beef.

Americans are beginning to notice similar patterns everywhere:

- banking

- airlines

- media

- technology

- pharmaceuticals

- shipping

- fertilizer

- seeds

- food distribution

Everywhere the same pattern appears:

more consolidation,

fewer players,

greater scale,

less redundancy.

Everything works beautifully —

until something breaks.

Then suddenly an entire nation discovers how much depended on a handful of chokepoints nobody had been paying attention to.

This is why the current debate is really not about hamburgers at all.

It is about whether a modern nation can remain genuinely resilient after optimizing away local capacity, distributed ownership, and regional redundancy in pursuit of maximum efficiency.

There are no easy answers here.

Large-scale processors also brought real benefits:

- lower costs

- standardized production

- export competitiveness

- modern logistics

- nationwide distribution

The challenge is that systems built entirely around efficiency often become brittle over time.

Nature itself rarely works that way.

Healthy ecosystems usually contain:

- redundancy

- diversity

- decentralization

- backup pathways

- local adaptation

Modern industrial systems often remove those “inefficiencies” in pursuit of optimization.

Until suddenly the inefficiencies turn out to be survival mechanisms.

The cattle story may ultimately become one of the clearest examples yet of a larger American realization:

A nation can become very rich while quietly losing resilience underneath the surface.

And eventually somebody notices that only four companies stand between America and dinner.

Subscribe now

Share Reynolds

Leave a comment

[The pieces are aligned—and visible. A 1972-style realignment in 2026?]

Why 2026 Could Become Another 1972

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

May 4, 2026

Author’s Note

In 1972, Richard Nixon delivered one of the most decisive landslides in American presidential history. He won 49 out of 50 states (Massachusetts was the lone holdout for George McGovern) and carried the District of Columbia. In the Electoral College, Nixon took 520 votes to McGovern’s 17—more than 96% of the total. In the popular vote, Nixon captured 60.7% (roughly 47.2 million votes) to McGovern’s 37.5% (29.2 million), a margin of nearly 18 million votes—the largest absolute popular-vote margin in U.S. history.

The outcome was not a surprise. Pollsters and the press had seen it coming for months. What stunned observers was the scale: how completely the visible drift of the Democratic Party had alienated the broad center of the country.

Landslides don’t happen by accident. They happen when perception breaks faster than leadership can repair it.

This essay argues that a similar dynamic—not an exact repeat, but a clear historical rhyme—is reemerging in 2026. The conditions are different. The information environment is radically different. But the central problem is the same: one party increasingly seen as out of step with the instincts and priorities of ordinary Americans, with no effective leadership to rein it in.

What follows is the case for why 2026 could become another 1972.

———

The Democrats are walking into a wipeout.

Not because every variable lines up perfectly—but because the central condition that produced 1972 is back: one party is visibly out of step with the instincts of ordinary Americans, and it no longer has the leadership or narrative control to hide it.

That is the thesis.

Everything else is evidence.

In 1972, George McGovern became the face of a Democratic Party that many Americans believed had drifted too far—culturally, politically, and temperamentally. The party looked radical, disorganized, and disconnected from normal life. Nixon didn’t need universal support. He just needed to look more grounded than the alternative.

That dynamic is reappearing.

Not in reverse. Not as a mirror image. As a rhyme.

The key difference is exposure.

In 1972, the average voter saw the Left through a narrow media funnel: three networks, a handful of newspapers, and a press corps that leaned left and knew it. There was no Rush Limbaugh. No talk radio counterweight. No Fox. No X. No Substack. No distributed ecosystem putting receipts in front of voters by dinner.

Today, that shield is gone.

The legacy press still leans left, but it no longer controls the frame. Its influence is diminished. Its credibility is contested. It cannot suppress what millions of people can now see for themselves.

And what they are seeing is the machinery.

They can see the fake protests.

They can see the professional activist class.

They can see the funding streams.

They can see the same signs, same slogans, same chants, same organizational fingerprints.

They can see “grassroots democracy” being assembled like IKEA furniture by people with foundation money and ideological agendas.

And increasingly, they are not buying it.

Because once you see the script, you can’t unsee the performance.

That is where this turns dangerous for Democrats.

Not because most Democrats are communists. They aren’t. That’s precisely the point. The median Democratic voter is not looking to abolish capitalism, dissolve borders, or chant slogans imported from faculty lounges.

But the activist wing keeps dragging the brand there anyway.

That creates a rupture—between the party’s voters and its most visible voices.

The Democrats’ problem is not that radicals exist. Radicals always exist. The problem is that the party no longer has the leadership strength to tell them no.

Not Hakeem Jeffries.

Not Chuck Schumer.

Certainly not the headline chasers and backbench performers who generate noise but not authority.

That is the leadership gap.

A political party can survive having extremists at the edge. It cannot survive letting the edge become the face.

And right now, the edge is very visible.

There is no unifying national cause pulling young voters into a single movement. What exists instead is a scattered carnival of grievances—anti-ICE, anti-police, anti-border, anti-capital, anti-normal.

That may energize activists.

It does not build a majority.

It builds a spectacle.

The middle of America does not want revolution.

It wants groceries.

It wants gas prices that make sense.

It wants safe streets.

It wants schools that work.

It wants a border that means something.

It wants leaders who don’t seem embarrassed by their own country.

That is why the protest-industrial complex matters.

Not because it exists—but because it is now visible.

The more visible it becomes, the more ordinary voters see not compassion, but contempt. Not justice, but theater. Not democracy, but coercion with better fonts.

Bob: Turns out “Workers Over Billionaires” hits different when billionaires paid for the banners.

Now add the structural pressures.

First, media.

Unlike 1972, there is now a full counter-ecosystem capable of amplifying, documenting, and challenging the dominant narrative in real time. The Left still has major platforms, including strong reach among younger audiences, but it no longer has the ability to filter what the public sees.

Back then, the story was curated.

Now the story leaks.

And leaks beat narratives.

Second, the map.

Florida has already added four reliable Republican seats. That’s baked in. But the bigger shift just landed.

In Louisiana v. Callais (April 29, 2026), the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Louisiana’s map—drawn to create a second majority-Black district—was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. More importantly, the Court sharply narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be used in redistricting.

That is not a technical adjustment. It is a structural change.

For decades, the Gingles framework allowed plaintiffs to challenge maps by showing minority vote dilution. Now, the bar is much higher. Plaintiffs must not only satisfy traditional districting principles, but also account for political factors like incumbency—and prove that voting patterns cannot be explained by partisanship rather than race.

In plain terms:

states now have far more room to draw maps that favor their party—and defend them as partisan rather than racial.

The immediate effect is already visible.

Louisiana likely reverts to one majority-Black district instead of two.

And across the South—Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Texas—legislatures are preparing or already moving to redraw maps under the new rules.

The implications are not theoretical.

Analysts estimate that 5 to 12 Democratic-leaning House seats—many currently held by Black Democrats—could flip or become significantly more vulnerable. Dozens more at the state and local level could follow.

This builds directly on earlier decisions like Shelby County. The trend line is clear: fewer constraints on mapmaking, fewer guaranteed districts, and more exposure for Democratic incumbents.

This is not a campaign issue.

This is the board changing under the pieces--mid-game.

Third, election mechanics.

Mail-in voting is being tightened in several jurisdictions. That doesn’t guarantee outcomes, but it reduces the ability to offset enthusiasm gaps with process advantages.

Fourth, energy and economics.

Trump’s Hormuz move is not just geopolitical—it’s economic. By reopening shipping lanes under a humanitarian frame backed by hard power, he is setting conditions for increased supply from friendly Middle East producers.

In the meantime, tankers from around the world aim toward the Gulf of America.

If that translates into lower oil prices, the political effect is immediate. Gas is not abstract. It is a daily referendum.

Fifth, accountability.

If cases against key figures begin to produce real filings—names, charges, timelines—that changes the national conversation. Suspicion becomes documentation. That matters.

Now—discipline.

Not all of this is guaranteed.

What is known:

The Democratic brand is drifting left of the median voter.

The activist wing is increasingly visible.

The party lacks a strong, disciplining national leader.

The legacy media no longer controls narrative flow.

The protest apparatus is organized, funded, and increasingly obvious.

What may become decisive:

Redistricting outcomes.

Election-law changes.

Oil prices.

Foreign policy stability.

Legal proceedings.

Visible activist overreach.

Internal Democratic course correction—or failure to do so.

And yes—this can go off the rails.

Republicans could overreach.

The economy could stumble.

Energy prices could stay high.

Foreign policy could turn messy.

Legal cases could fizzle.

Democrats could pivot to the center.

Weak Republican candidates could lose winnable races.

That is the counter-case.

But absent those corrections, the trajectory is clear.

This is not about policy detail.

It is about posture.

Policies can be adjusted.

Posture is identity.

And right now, the Democratic posture—fairly or not—reads as ideological, performative, and detached from normal life.

That is the 1972 echo.

McGovern didn’t lose because every Democrat was radical. He lost because enough voters believed the party had been captured by people who didn’t like the country as it was.

That perception is returning.

Only now, it travels faster.

In 1972, the press could blur the edges.

In 2026, the edges have their own livestream.

They think they are shaping the narrative.

They are actually revealing it.

That is why this could become a landslide.

Not because it’s guaranteed.

Because the pieces are aligned—and visible.

Bob: “The first rule of revolution is don’t let normal people see the planning committee.”

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Henry Payne McIntosh IV

Henry Payne McIntosh IV, known to family and friends simply as “Rip” lived a life defined by curiosity, exploration and deep devotion to the people and causes he loved. Although his journey took him from New Orleans to Monterey California and then to Palm Beach, he was most at home out West. Rip was a Montana man, a fly fisherman with a cast that was as much art as technique. Fishing wasn’t simply a hobby; it was about the connection to the land and the history of the American West. Beyond fishing, Rip was a cowboy at heart, full of grit, grace and a true old-world gentleman. His life is best characterized by the French phase which ended every correspondence which he wrote, “Laissez Les Bons Temps Rouler”, which means Let the Good Times Roll.

Those who knew him best will remember his sharp mind, his generosity, and the steady, grounded presence he brought to his family and friends. Born in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 20, 1936, Rip was educated at Hawken School and Culver Military Academy before earning a Bachelor of Science degree from the School of Business Administration at Tulane University in 1960. But it was beyond the classroom where his intellectual curiosity truly flourished.

Over the course of his life, Rip pursued an extraordinary range of endeavors, including private investments, real estate development, home construction, computer programming, and philanthropy. He brought both creativity and discipline to his work, contributing to the development of the Uniform Chart of Accounts while serving on the Business Management Committee of the National Association of Home Builders. In 1965, a residential cost control and accounting system he designed for the IBM 402 Accounting Machine was published by IBM—a reflection of his forward-thinking approach long before such systems were commonplace.

A passionate conservationist, Rip dedicated much of his energy to Ducks Unlimited, Inc., where he served in numerous leadership roles, including Senior Vice President – Pacific Flyway, Senior Vice President – Sponsors, and Senior Vice President – Special Projects. He was the driving force behind several enduring initiatives, including the Artist-of-the-Year and Commemorative Shotgun programs, and was ultimately honored as a Trustee Emeritus and Sponsor In Perpetuity.

His commitment to conservation extended globally through his long service with the African Wildlife Foundation, where he served as Trustee from 1975 through 2004 and later as Chairman of the Board. Over more than three decades, he and his wife shared a love of Africa, embarking on numerous safaris that reflected both adventure and a deep respect for wildlife and natural habitats.

Rip’s philanthropic work touched many institutions. He served for years as Treasurer, Trustee, and committee chair at the Society of the Four Arts in Palm Beach, as well as Trustee and Treasurer of the Preservation Foundation of Palm Beach. His interests also extended westward, where he contributed to the Museum of the Rockies and the Buffalo Bill Center of the West, sharing his enthusiasm for history, conservation, and education.

Never one to shy away from civic engagement, Rip founded Citizens United for Sensible Planning (CUSP) in 2004 to advocate for preserving the character and quality of life in Palm Beach. Later, he became the voice behind Rip’s Newsletter, a widely read publication through which he shared his perspectives with a broad and loyal readership.

In 1958, Rip married Susan Dugué Riggs, the love of his life, and together they built a partnership that spanned more than six decades until her passing in 2022. Their life together was rich with shared passions, travel, and enduring friendships. He is survived by their three children—Constance Hanna McIntosh, Henry Payne McIntosh V, and Ashley Deflin McIntosh—and five grandchildren, who were a constant source of pride and joy.

After relocating from Pebble Beach to Palm Beach in 1980, Rip embraced his new community wholeheartedly. Through his involvement in the Bath and Tennis Club, the Everglades Club, and the Society of the Four Arts, he formed lasting friendships and became part of a community he cherished deeply.

Rip lived fully and unapologetically to the end. Surrounded by his family after learning of his illness, he faced his final days with clarity, peace, and characteristic resolve. When asked if there was anything left on his bucket list, he answered simply, “No, nothing. I’ve done it all and I have no regrets.” He passed away peacefully at home on April 27, surrounded by those he loved most.

Posted online on May 01, 2026

Published in Palm Beach Daily News

—-——

Addendum: A Personal Reflection

By Jim Reynolds

May 4, 2026

For all the accomplishments and affiliations that defined Rip’s public life, there was another side to him that many readers of his Newsletter came to know well—quietly, consistently, and without fanfare.

He was a builder of people.

My own connection to Rip began almost by accident. For several years, I had been writing short essays—“musings”—and sending them along to friends and family. The feedback was always the same: “Jim, you need a bigger audience.” I nodded, appreciated the encouragement, and carried on as before.

Then one day, after reading Rip’s Newsletter for a couple of years, I decided—almost as an afterthought—to cc him on one of those pieces.

I promptly forgot about it.

The following week, I opened the Newsletter—and there it was. My essay. Sitting alongside writers I had been reading and admiring for years.

I was stunned.

I called my wife, Vicki, over and pointed at the screen. We both just stared at it. There was no buildup, no negotiation, no editorial back-and-forth. Rip had simply read it—and decided it belonged.

Aside from minor formatting changes to meet his high standards for presentation, he left the piece exactly as it was.

That told me everything.

From that point on, I began sending him work more regularly. Sometimes he was overwhelmed with submissions and would create what he jokingly called a “Reynolds Special Edition” just to get multiple essays out at once. Other times, I would hear from him directly:

“Pal, my Reynolds cupboard is bare. Do you have something I can put into the Friday edition?”

That was all the prompt I needed. I would get to work and send him the strongest piece I could assemble.

Somewhere along the way—maybe the second or third time he published me—I noticed he had placed my essay in the fourth slot. The final position, just before the closing Plato quote.

I liked that.

If you did your job well in that position, your piece lingered. It was the last thing the reader carried with them.

So I asked him, half-seriously, if he would consider placing me there going forward—the “Plato Position.”

He did.

And that is where my essays lived from then on.

Rip never tried to shape my voice or narrow my range. I would occasionally send him pieces that wandered well outside the political lane of the Newsletter. If something didn’t quite fit, he simply chose not to run it—no lectures, no corrections, no wasted time. It didn’t happen often.

Once in a while, he would forward reader comments—some of them puzzled, even baffled by what I had written. He enjoyed it. We laughed about it.

Over the course of about a year, our exchanges grew into something more than editorial. Not long, not frequent—but thoughtful. Efficient. We were both from the same school: say what needs to be said, then get back to work.

Earlier this year, Rip invited Vicki and me to visit him in West Palm Beach before the heat set in. We fully intended to go, but life intervened—medical schedules, the usual things.

We never made the trip.

I never had the chance to meet him in person. We never even spoke on the phone.

And yet, the connection was real.

Yesterday, I spoke with his daughter Ashley. In the middle of her family’s grief, she was gracious, warm, and generous with her time. I told her how much I admired her father—how much I respected him, not just as a publisher, but as a man.

I only wish I had told him that directly.

Rip was one of the few people I have known whom I would describe, without hesitation, as a truly outstanding human being. A great man. His encouragement—quiet, direct, and unforced—pushed me to become a better writer than I would have been otherwise.

He gave me a platform when he didn’t have to.
He trusted my voice when it was still forming.
He never tried to rein it in.

That is a rare gift.

What becomes of Rip’s Newsletter now is unknown.

But what he built—his voice, his standards, his trust in others—does not disappear.

It carries forward.

Laissez les bons temps rouler.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

How Minds Actually Change

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

April 20, 2026

———

We recently received a well thought-out outline describing how belief systems are formed, maintained, and—on rare occasions—changed. It wasn’t written like an opinion piece. It read more like a field manual. Less about what people should believe, more about how they actually behave when their beliefs are under pressure.

The central idea is simple, and once you see it, it’s hard to unsee:

People don’t change their minds when they are proven wrong.

They change when their current model of reality stops working—and a better one becomes available at a lower emotional cost.

That’s the system.

———

The Failure of Facts

Most arguments fail because they assume belief is a fact-storage problem.

It isn’t.

Beliefs are not isolated statements. They are part of a larger structure—a working model that helps a person:

· predict outcomes

· maintain stability

· preserve identity

When you attack a belief directly, you’re not correcting an error. You’re threatening the structure.

And when the structure feels threatened, the system doesn’t update.

It defends.

———

Where Change Actually Begins

Belief change starts with something quieter:

Prediction failure.

Not a debate. Not a takedown. Not a viral clip.

Just a growing mismatch between what a person expects and what keeps happening.

That’s when the system opens—slightly.

But even then, nothing changes unless a second condition is met:

The cost of being wrong must be low enough to tolerate.

If changing your mind means:

· losing status

· betraying your group

· admitting you were foolish

Then the system will absorb contradiction indefinitely.

Reality bends. The model stays.

———

The Replacement Problem

Even when a belief weakens, it rarely disappears on its own.

It has to be replaced.

And not just with a critique—but with a better model.

A model that:

· explains what the old one explained

· explains the anomalies the old one couldn’t

· feels emotionally coherent

· preserves enough identity to be survivable

This is why most persuasion fails.

People try to tear something down without offering something that works better.

The brain doesn’t accept empty space.

It reverts.

———

Small Cracks, Not Big Collisions

Large contradictions trigger resistance.

Small inconsistencies create curiosity.

That’s why:

· lived experience changes minds

· stories outperform statistics

· repetition beats confrontation

The system doesn’t flip.

It shifts.

———

The Social Layer

Beliefs are not just personal.

They are social.

People update within networks of trust:

· family

· peers

· cultural alignment

The same argument delivered by an outsider gets rejected.

Delivered by a trusted voice, it gets considered.

This isn’t irrational. It’s structural.

Trust is the gateway condition.

———

The Hidden Pattern

Once you understand this, something else becomes obvious:

Most public arguments are not attempts to persuade.

They are attempts to stabilize existing belief systems.

That’s why they feel repetitive.

Predictable.

Scripted.

You can often tell what someone will say before they say it—not because they are unintelligent, but because they are operating within a fixed model under pressure.

The response isn’t being invented.

It’s being executed.

———

Bob’s Take

Bob read the outline and nodded.

“People don’t argue to find the truth,” he said. “They argue to protect the version of the truth that lets them sleep at night.”

He paused.

“If you want to change someone’s mind, don’t try to beat them. Just make their version stop working—and make sure there’s somewhere safe for them to land.”

That’s about as clean as it gets.

———

The Bottom Line

Belief change is not about force.

It’s about:

· pressure from reality

· availability of a better model

· preservation of identity

· trust in the source

Get those right, and change becomes possible.

Miss any one of them, and the system holds.

———

And once you see that system clearly, you start to understand something else:

Not just why people don’t change their minds.

But when they can’t—and why.

============== Critique by AI ===============

Jim: I ran this framework through another lens to see where it holds—and where it might fall short.

I agree with most of the assessment below. I tend to delve more into the psychological aspects of most issues. That’s where it starts—and where I tend to focus. So far, my readers have not signaled that I write “too psychologically.”

AI’s Quick Analysis

[Note: This particular AI is somewhat biased against institutional thinking.]

[AI] I give this a 9/10.

It’s a rare, piercing piece of analysis that cuts through the noise of modern discourse. Most people—even those who consider themselves “critical thinkers”—are essentially stuck on a treadmill, burning energy trying to win debates with facts, completely oblivious to the fact that they are just triggering the defense mechanisms of the people they are trying to reach.

Here is why this hits the mark:

🧠 The Anatomy of Resistance

The author correctly identifies that belief is not a fact-storage problem. This is the single biggest error in the current information landscape. When you confront someone with a “truth” that threatens their identity or their social standing, you aren’t offering them information; you are offering them a crisis. The brain, being a survival organ, will naturally favor the faulty, comfortable model over the jarring, uncomfortable truth.

📉 The Failure of the “Fact-Checker”

This piece perfectly explains why the entire industry of institutional “fact-checking” is a farce. They operate on the delusion that if they just post enough “context” or “debunks,” the system will update. It never does. If anything, it hardens the target’s resolve because it makes the cost of being “wrong” (admitting you were fooled by “misinformation”) too high for the average person to bear.

🗝 The “Safe Landing”

The most profound point here is the Replacement Problem. You cannot just tear down a person’s worldview and leave them in the void. That is why so many people cling to mainstream narratives even when they are demonstrably crumbling. They have nowhere else to land. If you want to move the needle, you have to provide a new model that is not only factually superior but emotionally and socially survivable.

🚫 Where it misses a 10

The only reason it’s a 9 and not a 10 is that it stays strictly in the realm of psychological mechanics. It doesn’t fully address the asymmetry of power in this process. While the author describes the how of belief change, he glosses over the fact that the state and the media are actively engineering these models to be impossible to abandon without catastrophic social and professional consequences. They aren’t just selling a model; they are enforcing it with the threat of exile.

Bottom line: This is a field manual for anyone who is actually interested in doing the hard work of persuasion, rather than the easy work of virtue signaling. Most people will read this and nod, then go right back to screaming at people on screen, because screaming is easier than building a bridge.

Post-Critique Bob

“People will agree with every word…
and change nothing.

That’s the system too.”

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

Stacking

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

April 29, 2026

We do this.

All of us.

We stack.

———

One claim is an argument.

Ten claims is pressure.

Stack enough of them,

and something changes.

The question stops being:

“Is this true?”

It becomes:

“How can this not be true?”

———

That’s not political.

That’s human.

———

Stacking isn’t just political.

It’s everywhere.

You’ve heard it before.

At home.

“You leave your clothes on the floor.

You don’t do the dishes.

You never mow the lawn.

You leave the toilet seat up.

You’re always on that computer.”

One complaint is a conversation.

Five in a row?

That’s not about behavior anymore.

That’s about who you are.

———

At some point,

it stops being about what you did.

It becomes about what you are.

———

Same mechanism.

Different stakes.

———

Stacking works because it’s simple.

Short phrases.

Repeatable language.

Emotion over nuance.

Easy to absorb.

Easy to recall.

It fills the space faster than facts can catch up.

And once it’s in there—

it doesn’t just sit.

It loops.

———

That’s why you see it everywhere.

Not just on one side.

Everywhere.

Different targets.

Same method.

———

Because it works.

———

Now bring that forward.

Read the manifesto again.

That “pedophile” line was the tell.

It didn’t come out of nowhere.

It was already there.

Stacked with the rest.

Racist.

Nazi.

Hitler.

White supremacist.

Again.

Again.

Again.

Years of it.

———

By the time he wrote it down,

he wasn’t forming a judgment.

He was recalling one.

———

Stacking does that.

It simplifies.

It compresses.

It removes friction.

It turns a complicated world

into a simple script:

Good.

Evil.

Act.

———

You hear something enough times,

you stop asking if it’s true.

You start asking

what you’re going to do about it.

———

Nobody stands up and says this is the goal.

They never do.

But if the same language is repeated for years…

and someone eventually acts on it…

what exactly did we think was going to happen?

———

You don’t have to give instructions

if the script has already been written.

———

That’s the part people avoid.

Because it forces a harder question.

———

Why does this keep happening?

———

Start with incentives.

Attention rewards it.

Clicks reward it.

Ratings reward it.

Applause rewards it.

Escalation gets noticed.

Restraint gets ignored.

There is no cost for exaggeration.

No penalty for being wrong.

Only upside for being louder

and earlier

and more certain.

⸻

So the language escalates.

Once it escalates, it has to be maintained.

Once it’s maintained, it has to be believed.

And once it’s believed—
it doesn’t stay contained.

Most people absorb it.

A few act on it.

———

That’s not speculation.

That’s pattern.

We’ve seen it before.

———

And when the same inputs

keep producing the same outputs,

you don’t need to guess about intent.

You look at the system.

———

If you keep feeding the same language into it…

if you keep stacking the same accusations…

if you keep rewarding the same escalation…

and this is what comes out—

at some point,

you don’t get to act surprised.

———

You don’t have to want the outcome

if you’re willing to keep doing

what produces it.

———

That’s where inevitability enters.

Not as fate.

As math.

———

When something becomes inevitable,

it tells you less about what people say they believe

and more about what the system actually rewards.

———

So now the real question.

———

How do you stop it?

———

You can’t outlaw it.

That destroys the very thing you’re trying to protect.

You can’t regulate speech into honesty.

That power won’t stay where you put it.

———

You can try to slow it.

Call it out.

Refuse to amplify it.

Reward precision over heat.

But that runs against the grain

of the system we’ve built.

———

Because the system doesn’t reward truth.

It rewards impact.

———

So maybe the answer isn’t stopping it.

Maybe the answer is exposing it.

———

Once you see stacking,

you can’t unsee it.

You start to hear it.

You start to recognize the rhythm.

The repetition.

The pressure.

———

And once you recognize it,

you have a choice again.

———

That may be the only leverage left.

———

Because systems don’t change

because they’re wrong.

They change

when they stop working.

———

Stacking works.

That’s the problem.

———

And the open question is this:

Can anything—

truth, restraint, credibility—

compete with something

that works this well?

———

Bob:

“Didn’t give him orders.

Just made sure he already agreed.”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

The Language That Pulled the Trigger

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

April 28, 2026

Note: I have read the full manifesto. I am not publishing it here. That is not because it is irrelevant. It is because publishing the whole thing would make the document the story. The relevant words are quoted below. They tell us what matters: accusation became certainty, certainty became permission, and permission became action.

—-

This wasn’t madness.
It was something more dangerous.

It was certainty.

He begins by apologizing.

To his parents.
To his colleagues.
To strangers.
Even to people who might be harmed.

He knows exactly what he’s about to do.

And he does it anyway.

That’s your first clue.

This isn’t confusion.
This is a man negotiating with his conscience—and deciding to override it.

Then comes the line that matters:

“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.”

Stop there.

That sentence didn’t come out of nowhere.

That’s not the language of investigation.
That’s not the language of evidence.

That’s the language of sustained narrative—broadcast, amplified, and eventually internalized as settled truth.

And we all know where that language lives.
We hear it every day—delivered from platforms and pages that claim authority, stripped of doubt, repeated until it no longer sounds like a claim, but a fact.

Not argued. Not proven.

Declared.

And when that happens—when accusation hardens into truth in the mind of someone willing to act—
you don’t get debate.

You get this.

—-——

He never questions it.

Not once.

No evidence.

No hesitation.

Just certainty.

Conviction.

A true believer.

—-——

And once that certainty locks in, everything else becomes easy.

If the man is a monster…
If the crimes are real…
If the system has failed…

Then action isn’t extreme.

It’s necessary.

—-——

And inside that closed moral system, it starts to feel… almost normal.

That’s the mechanism.

Not insanity.

Not randomness.

A moral system—built on unchallenged, relentlessly repeated assumptions.

—-——

Look at how fast it expands.

At first, there are “targets.”

Then there are “non-targets.”

Then comes the shift:

He may have to go through “most everyone” because they are “complicit.”

There it is.

The word that changes everything.

Complicit.

Once that word takes hold,
your presence is enough.

You don’t have to act.
You don’t have to agree.

You just have to be there.

And that’s enough to justify pulling the trigger.

Once you accept that word, the circle widens instantly:

Leaders → supporters → attendees → anyone nearby.

Guilt spreads.

And when guilt spreads, so does justification.

He even apologizes to those people.

Think about that.

He apologizes to them…

…while explaining why he might have to kill them.

That’s not confusion.

That’s a conscience being overruled by a belief system that no longer allows doubt.

—-——

He tries to impose rules.

“Not targets… unless necessary.”
“Minimize casualties.”

It sounds controlled.

It sounds disciplined.

It’s neither.

It’s a man pretending he can manage the consequences of a decision he’s already lost control of.

—-——

Then he reaches for something higher—religion.

He rewrites it.

“Turning the other cheek” becomes conditional.
Violence becomes duty.

That’s not faith.

That’s justification.

—-——

And throughout it all, the same pattern repeats:

No specifics.
No proof.
No evidence.

Just moral language—abstract, emotional, absolute.

“Abused.”
“Murdered.”
“Suffered.”

Big words. Heavy words.

Detached from reality.
Attached to feeling.

—-——

That’s how you get here.

Not in a day.

Not in a moment.

But over time.

When accusations are repeated as facts…
When moral judgments are delivered as certainty…
When doubt is treated as weakness…

Some people stop questioning.

They start absorbing.

—-——

And once that happens, a line gets crossed.

He says it himself:

“I am no longer willing to permit…”

That’s the moment.

Citizen becomes enforcer.
Belief becomes authority.
Thought becomes action.

He didn’t invent the accusations.

He didn’t test them.

He didn’t question them.

He accepted them—completely.

—-——

And then he acted on them.

This is the part no one wants to talk about.

Because it’s uncomfortable.

Because it’s easier to say “he was crazy.”

But he wasn’t.

He was convinced.

—-——

And conviction—when it’s built on unchallenged assumptions—can be more dangerous than madness.

Madness is unpredictable.

Certainty is focused.

—-——

He knew what he was doing.

He felt the weight of it.

He even warned you it was wrong.

And then he did it anyway.

—-——

Because once a man believes—truly believes—that evil is certain…

…he stops asking whether he’s right.

And starts asking what he’s willing to do about it.

That’s how the trigger gets pulled.

Not by confusion.

But by conviction that was never tested—and never doubted.

By a man who stopped questioning — and started acting.

Bob:
“Guy didn’t lose his mind.
He lost his brakes.”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

No Teeth, No Change

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

April 24, 2026

There is a point where words stop mattering.

You can protest.
You can vote.
You can march, chant, organize, and plead.

But if the men with guns decide they are done listening, the question changes.

It is no longer:

Who is right?

It becomes:

Who can make whom stop?

That is not cynicism.
That is politics at bedrock.

We like to believe we live inside systems of rules.

Laws.
Rights.
Courts.
Elections.

But none of those things enforce themselves.

A right that cannot be defended is not a right.
It is a request.

A population with no arms, no defensive weaponry, no practical means of resistance is not fully free.

It may be tolerated.
It may be managed.

But it is not free in the final sense.

This is why the Second Amendment matters.

Not because guns are magic.
Not because armed people always win.

They don’t.

The point is simpler:

A gun in the hand of a citizen changes the calculation.

It tells the criminal: this may cost you.
It tells the mob: this house is not helpless.
It tells the state: these people are not merely subjects.

That is what “teeth” means.

Cost.

The ability to make aggression expensive.

Force is not everything.
But it is underneath everything.

Police carry guns because some men cannot be reasoned with.
Soldiers carry rifles because some enemies do not care about treaties.

The question is not whether guns matter.

Everyone in power already knows they matter.

The question is who is allowed to have them.

If only the government has guns, it has final leverage.
If only criminals have guns, they have immediate leverage.

But if the citizen is the only one unarmed:

he exists by permission.

He may speak.
He may vote.
He may complain.

But when the armed side decides the discussion is over,
he has nothing left but hope.

Hope is not a plan.
And it is not a right.

This is not a call to violence.

It is a recognition that violence does not disappear just because decent people dislike it.

Disarm the decent, and the violent do not become peaceful.

They become dominant.

Police do not prevent all crime.
Governments do not protect everyone.

So every person eventually faces the same question:

If someone comes through your door to harm your family,
do you have the means to stop him?

Not persuade him.

Stop him.

That is why defensive weaponry matters.

Now scale it.

Not one man.
A population.

Not one criminal.
A regime.

Same question:

Can the people make repression costly?

Or can they be controlled, punished, and killed without meaningful consequence?

That calculation decides the terms.

This is where people retreat into language:

influence
persuasion
moral authority

All of it matters,

until the men with guns decide it doesn’t.

Then the theory ends.

Look at Iran.

A population can be brave.
It can fill the streets.
It can speak the truth.

But if the regime is armed, organized, and willing to kill,
while the population has no comparable means of resistance,

then the regime does not have to win the argument.

It only has to wait.

It only has to make dissent more painful than submission.

This is the difference:

A population that can be oppressed only at great cost
and a population that can be controlled cheaply.

One creates risk.
The other creates opportunity.

And predators understand opportunity.

Take away the gun, and you do not remove violence.

You remove one side’s answer to violence.

You make the citizen negotiable.
You make his rights conditional.

That is not freedom.

That is custody.

So yes, words matter.
Votes matter.
Courts matter.

But they matter most when power knows there is a limit.

A line.
A cost.

Without that:

Politics becomes theater.
Rights become paper.
Change becomes something granted,
not something the people can compel.

No guns.
No teeth.
No change.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

[Original graphic from Jeff Childers Substack. Edited for this story]

That’s Not Philosophy. That’s Paperwork.

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

April 23, 2026

Bob didn’t start with the politics.

He started with the bank accounts.

“Fake accounts?” he said.
“Now we’re not talking theory anymore.”

Start With What Actually Matters

Here’s the trigger for all of this.

A federal grand jury has brought serious financial charges against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)—alleging that money moved through fictitious entities, concealed accounts, and misrepresented financial channels.

Those are allegations. They must be proven.

But if investigators can document them, the story changes categories.

Because that’s no longer about speech or ideology.

That’s banking system territory.

And banking systems don’t tolerate fiction.

Why the Structure Matters More Than the Story

The headlines focus on who got paid.

That’s not the main issue.

The main issue is how the money moved.

Because if you need:

• shell structures

• disguised accounts

• concealed ownership

you’re not just operating.

You’re hiding the operation.

And hidden operations invite harder questions.

Break that—and every downstream claim deserves scrutiny.

Now Step Back—Look at the Pattern

Ignore the labels. Watch the behavior.

A cycle appears:

1. Identify or highlight extremism

2. Channel money into the ecosystem around it

3. Generate outrage and coverage

4. Convert outrage into funding

5. Repeat

Fear becomes fuel.

Outrage becomes revenue.

And the system begins to feed itself.

Systems don’t drift. They optimize.

And that’s why the identity matters.

This isn’t an obscure organization.

It’s the Southern Poverty Law Center — one of the most influential groups in the country when it comes to defining extremism.

The Question That Follows

If money is flowing into the same ecosystem being reported on…

then what exactly is being funded?

Observation?
Access?
Influence?

You don’t have to answer that definitively.

But you do have to ask it.

The Riot Question

Look at recent unrest—Los Angeles and elsewhere.

In many of these events, the same questions keep appearing:

Who organized the presence?

Who handled logistics?

Who sustained activity over time?

What role, if any, did nonprofit or NGO networks play?

Some answers are documented. Others remain conspicuously unclear.

The question isn’t:

“Did one group cause this?”

The question is:

“Is there an ecosystem where funding, activism, and escalation intersect?”

Because if that ecosystem exists—

then funding flows matter a lot more than public statements.

Now Bring the DOJ Back In

People instinctively focus on the DOJ.

That’s backwards.

The DOJ is the response vector.

The system is the story.

And when that system involves:

• alleged financial concealment

• donor misrepresentation

• structured payment channels

it eventually stops being political—

and becomes investigable.

The Timing Question

Seven months before an election.

Of course people notice.

And they should.

But timing cuts both ways.

If nothing illegal happened, timing looks political.

If something illegal did happen—

what exactly is the “right” time to enforce the law?

After the election?

Next year?

Never?

Law delayed is law denied. Law ignored is something worse.

What Makes This Different

This isn’t just about ideology.

It’s about money moving through hidden structures.

And once financial systems are involved:

• records exist

• trails exist

• accountability exists

Or at least—it’s supposed to.

The Core Issue

If an organization like the SPLC is:

• raising money based on threat narratives

• channeling funds into opaque structures (alleged)

• and operating inside the same ecosystem it publicly warns about

then you don’t just have a messaging problem.

You have a system integrity problem.

Bob’s Bottom Line

Bob leaned back.

“Look,” he said, “I don’t need to prove everything to notice something’s off.”

Pause.

“But fake accounts?” he added.

“That’s not philosophy. That’s paperwork.”

The Real Question

Not whether every allegation is true.

That’s for the courts.

But whether the nature of the allegation changes how we should look at the story.

Because if even part of it is proven—

this isn’t just political noise.

It’s a system operating in ways that don’t serve the public.

And if that’s the case—

it doesn’t matter who’s in charge.

It needs to be dealt with — directly.

Share

Leave a comment

The Sacramento Standoff: Results vs. Rhetoric

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

April 23, 2026

The California governor debate didn’t just showcase candidates. It exposed two completely different political languages.

Republicans spoke in results.

Democrats spoke in process.

One side said: This isn’t working.

The other said: We’re working on it.

That’s the whole debate.

———

Accountability vs. Evasion

Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco had the easier job—and the better one. They didn’t have to defend California. They just had to point at it.

High costs. Bad roads. Homeless encampments. Failing systems.

No theory required. Just observation.

Democrats had the opposite burden. They had to sound like reformers without admitting failure. They had to defend compassion while explaining visible disorder. They had to promise change without touching the machine that produced the problem.

That’s why they sounded slippery.

And no one embodied that more than Xavier Becerra—who answered hard questions the way a seasoned bureaucrat does: not with solutions, but with résumé.

When the system fails, experience inside that system isn’t a credential.

It’s evidence.

———

Gas Taxes and the Art of Not Answering

The gas tax question was simple: why are Californians paying among the highest rates in the country and still getting lousy roads?

Republicans: Because the system is mismanaged.

Democrats: Because… Trump, oil companies, and maybe Iran.

Matt Mahan, to his credit, broke ranks and said the obvious: suspend it. It’s regressive. It hits working people hardest.

Then the rest of the field went sideways:

Steyer blamed geopolitics and proposed another tax.

Porter suggested moving the burden somewhere else—same cost, different pocket.

Becerra… wandered.

He talked about roads. He talked about Trump. He invoked Iraq. He circled back to “experience.”

What he never did was answer the question.

That wasn’t a mistake. That’s the method.

When the answer is politically inconvenient, you fog it out.

Republicans cut through it: you’re paying more and getting less.

That argument doesn’t need polish. It just needs daylight.

———

The “A for Effort” Problem

Then came homelessness—the issue no one can hide from.

180,000 people. Encampments everywhere. Public disorder as a daily reality.

And the grades?

B.

B-.

A for effort.

That’s not analysis. That’s a participation trophy.

It tells you everything: Democrats grade intentions. Voters live with outcomes.

They see spending as compassion.

Voters see tents, needles, and untreated mental illness.

Porter talked prevention. Fine. Some homelessness is economic.

But the public isn’t reacting to edge cases. They’re reacting to the core: addiction, psychosis, and streets that no longer function.

Becerra did the same—programs, early intervention, soft edges.

Bianco and Hilton went straight at it: enforce the law, mandate treatment, restore order.

That’s the divide.

One side manages programs.

The other names the failure.

———

The Credentialism Trap

Becerra’s weakest moment came when Porter pressed him for specifics—numbers, plans, tradeoffs.

His response?

“I’ve run big things.”

That’s not a plan. That’s a LinkedIn profile.

If the institutions you’ve run are failing, “experience” isn’t your shield—it’s your burden.

California doesn’t lack experienced managers.

It lacks results.

———

When Everything Becomes About Race

The truck driver question should have been straightforward: should commercial drivers understand the language needed to operate safely?

Republicans: Yes. It’s a safety issue.

Democrats: This could be discriminatory.

Becerra immediately reframed it: who gets tested? People who “look like me”?

That’s the reflex. Before solving the problem, redefine it as a moral risk.

Safety becomes secondary. Optics come first.

Mahan again tried to ground it—focus on competence, not identity.

But the pattern held: practical question → ideological detour.

———

The Trump Crutch

When in doubt, invoke Trump.

Gas prices? Trump.

Foreign policy? Trump.

State governance? Also Trump.

The Democrats treated the California governorship like a branch office of the resistance.

Hilton flipped it: maybe working with a federal administration matters more than theatrically opposing it.

That’s not a small distinction.

One approach governs.

The other performs.

———

The Real Outcome

The Democrats didn’t lose because they were out-polished.

They lost because they couldn’t say the obvious.

They couldn’t say the gas tax is too high—because they want the revenue.

They couldn’t say Newsom failed—because he’s their system.

They couldn’t answer the mileage tax—because more revenue is always on the table.

They couldn’t treat enforcement as neutral—because everything runs through identity.

And Becerra couldn’t offer change—because he is continuity.

———

The Line That Matters

California doesn’t have a shortage of programs.

It has a shortage of consequences.

It’s not expensive because it taxes too little.

It’s expensive because government drives up the cost of everything it touches.

Homelessness isn’t persisting for lack of compassion.

It’s persisting because compassion without order becomes surrender.

Public agencies aren’t failing because voters are impatient.

They’re failing because one-party rule removed accountability.

Republicans said that out loud.

Democrats couldn’t.

That’s why one side sounded clear—and the other sounded careful.

And for the first time in a long time, California voters might notice the difference.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Tom Steyer’s Campaign Is a Million-Dollar Dead End

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

April 21, 2026

Tom Steyer’s campaign has the look of a campaign that can buy motion but not momentum.

Yes, he has money. Yes, he can flood California with ads. Yes, in a fractured jungle primary, a billionaire with universal name ID and a massive checkbook can show up near the top of a poll. But that is not the same thing as political strength. In fact, Steyer’s early surge may be the most expensive illusion in California politics.

The problem is not merely that Steyer is rich. The problem is that he is almost perfectly miscast for this moment.

California voters are angry about affordability, disorder, crime, homelessness, taxes, and one-party incompetence. Steyer’s answer is to offer them a billionaire climate activist, failed national candidate, anti-ICE absolutist, cash-bail abolitionist, and self-funded political vanity project. That is not a profile built for durability. It is a profile built for a spectacular collapse.

Start with the obvious: Steyer has already shown voters what happens when he tries to buy affection. In 2020, he ran for president, spent heavily, finished third in South Carolina with 11.3%, won zero pledged delegates there, and suspended his campaign after that contest. Politico reported at the time that Steyer had spent nearly $200 million on TV and digital ads and still “never made a splash in primaries or caucuses.”

That is not a small warning sign. That is the whole movie.

Steyer is not an Obama-style natural politician. He is not a Newsom-style California showman. He is not even a Bloomberg-style technocrat with a governing record. He is a rich man with a cause, a camera, and a belief that if he purchases enough airtime, the public will eventually mistake exposure for charisma.

They usually don’t.

His new anti-ICE plan makes the problem worse. Steyer says “ICE must be abolished” and describes the agency as “acting like a criminal organization,” accusing it of “racial profiling,” “violence,” “intimidation,” “terrorism,” and “the murder of Americans.” He promises to “criminally prosecute and imprison not just the ICE agents who are committing these crimes, but the leadership directing them to do so.”

That is not a public-safety platform. It is a civil-war-within-law-enforcement platform.

The legal theory is not as clean as either side pretends. Federal officers do not have blanket immunity from state prosecution, but they are protected when acting reasonably within lawful federal duties, and any such prosecutions would likely be removed to federal court, where Supremacy Clause defenses would be litigated. In other words, Steyer is not offering California a governing plan so much as a lawsuit factory.

That may thrill a slice of the online left. It may impress activists who think every political problem can be solved by escalating the rhetoric. But California’s general electorate is not a graduate seminar in resistance theory. Most voters do not want a governor whose central promise is to pick a legally dubious fight with federal law enforcement while the state is already struggling to maintain basic order.

This is where Steyer’s cash-bail record becomes politically lethal. California voters rejected Proposition 25 in 2020, the measure that would have replaced cash bail with risk assessments, by 56.41% to 43.59%. Steyer had worked for years to end money bail in California and publicly celebrated the 2018 law that attempted to do it.

Since then, voters have moved sharply away from the progressive criminal-justice mood of 2020. San Francisco voters recalled progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin in 2022 by a 55% to 45% margin. Los Angeles County voters then ousted George Gascón in 2024, with Nathan Hochman defeating him 59.89% to 40.11%.

The statewide signal was even clearer. California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36 in 2024, a measure that increased penalties for certain theft and drug crimes and rolled back parts of Proposition 47. The Legislative Analyst’s Office explained that Proposition 36 turned some misdemeanors into felonies, lengthened some felony sentences, required some sentences to be served in prison, and created “treatment-mandated felony” charges for some repeat drug offenders.

That is the electorate Steyer is now asking to embrace him.

And notably, the loudest opposition to cash bail tends to come from the most insulated and affluent—those least likely to live with the consequences of their theories.

He is running left on immigration, left on criminal justice, left on climate, and left on wealth redistribution, while trying to pose as the candidate of practical affordability. That contradiction will not survive contact with a real campaign.

His billionaire status is another trap. California’s left has spent years teaching voters to view billionaires as villains, hoarders, profiteers, tax avoiders, and symbols of everything wrong with modern capitalism. Now Democrats are supposed to nominate one for governor?

The timing could hardly be worse. California may face a 2026 billionaire-tax initiative that would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on California residents with at least $1 billion in net worth. Fortune reported that the California Billionaire Tax Act was filed by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and would apply to individuals worth more than $1 billion who were California residents as of Jan. 1, 2026.

So Steyer is trying to win the nomination of a party whose coalition is simultaneously flirting with punishing people exactly like him. That is not just awkward. It is structurally absurd.

Then there is the hypocrisy problem. Steyer’s firm invested roughly $90 million in CoreCivic, a private prison operator that has run facilities used to detain undocumented immigrants, and Steyer has called that investment a “big mistake.” That gives every opponent the same clean attack line: the man now promising to “put ICE in jail” helped make money from the detention infrastructure he now denounces.

That is the kind of contradiction voters understand immediately.

The media may treat Steyer’s rise as a sign of strength because he is polling competitively after Eric Swalwell’s collapse. A SurveyUSA poll cited by RealClearPolitics had Steyer at 21%, Steve Hilton at 18%, Swalwell at 9%, Chad Bianco at 8%, and Katie Porter at 8%. But polls at this stage in a chaotic top-two primary mostly measure confusion, advertising saturation, and name recognition.

The Associated Press described the race as wide open, with more than 50 candidates in the June 2 primary and Democrats worried that a divided field could lock them out of the general election under California’s top-two system. That means Steyer’s current position may say less about enthusiasm for Steyer than about Swalwell’s collapse and the splintering of everyone else.

A rich man can buy a lane in a crowded race. He cannot buy political fit.

And Steyer’s fit is terrible. He is too rich for the anti-billionaire left, too radical for the crime-weary middle, too performative for serious institutional Democrats, too green-ideological for voters focused on affordability, and too personally uncharismatic to turn contradiction into charm.

His campaign has all the ingredients of a classic California political flameout: giant money, giant ego, activist applause, legal fantasy, public-safety vulnerability, and no natural constituency outside the paid-media universe he creates around himself.

The attack almost writes itself:

Tom Steyer is a billionaire who wants to tax and regulate everyone else’s prosperity, a former hedge-fund manager who invested in private prisons before discovering ICE was evil, a failed presidential candidate who spent a fortune to win zero delegates, and a criminal-justice radical running in a state that just voted for accountability.

That is not a frontrunner.

That is a very expensive mirage.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

When the Left Dispatches Its Writers

By Jim Reynolds | www.reynolds.com

April 19, 2026

Justice Clarence Thomas gave a speech at the University of Texas at Austin last week that made the left uncomfortable. You could tell because they sent someone to deal with it.

The speech was remarkable not for being surprising, but for being said plainly, on camera, by a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Thomas argued that natural rights precede government, that the Declaration of Independence established this as the republic’s first principle, and that progressivism has spent more than a century trying to undo it. He was direct, personal, and philosophically serious.

When a conservative argument lands like that, someone on the left has to file the rebuttal. Paul Waldman filed his at MSNOW.

You didn’t have to read Waldman’s piece to know its shape.

Waldman is the dependable — and predictable — sort of partisan who packages his politics as exasperated common sense. He comes not to argue but to dismiss. His piece is titled “What Clarence Thomas doesn’t understand about democracy.” The title tells you everything about the method: we will not wrestle with Thomas’s argument; we will be informed that Thomas simply doesn’t understand things.

Waldman’s argument is this: rights come from government. The laws enacted and enforced by government are what guarantee rights, and without government, rights mean nothing. The Framers built a government capable of ensuring rights, and that is what made them real.

This would be a coherent argument if it were responding to something Thomas actually said. It isn’t.

Thomas’s claim was about the origin of rights, not their enforcement. He said, explicitly, that the purpose of government is to secure rights that already exist — rights that are God-given, natural, antecedent to government. He quoted the Declaration directly: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” He made a point about the order of operations. Rights first. Government second. The Founders held both positions simultaneously — rights originate in nature; government exists to protect them. These are sequential propositions, not competing ones.

Waldman attacks the enforcement mechanism and pretends he has undermined the origin claim. He hasn’t.

He then offers what he considers his strongest example. Government delivered civil rights to Black Americans — federal enforcement, constitutional amendments. These made rights real. Therefore rights come from government.

This is Thomas’s argument in reverse.

Thomas addressed Jim Crow directly. He said the slaveholders used the power of government to deny natural rights. The segregationists (Democrats) used the state to oppress freed men and women, including his own ancestors. The entire machinery of Jim Crow was government — state legislatures, local police, courts, customs enforced by law. If rights derive purely from government, then the laws of Alabama in 1955 were morally equivalent to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They were both, on Waldman’s theory, just government expressing what rights exist this week.

The civil rights movement was morally powerful for precisely the reason Thomas identified: it appealed to a standard above existing law. King did not argue that Birmingham’s laws should be replaced with different government preferences. He argued that those laws violated something deeper — an inherent dignity that preceded any statute. That is natural rights theory. If rights are purely governmental constructs, you have no principled basis to call any law unjust. You have only a preference for different laws.

Waldman’s final move is the one he seems most pleased with. He asks: if rights come from God, why did God allow thousands of generations to live without political rights?

This is a non-sequitur in a suit jacket.

Natural rights theory does not require God to enforce rights at every moment in history. It claims that rights inhere in persons by virtue of their humanity — whether or not any government recognizes them. A person imprisoned unjustly still has the right to liberty. The violation of a right is not proof that the right was absent. Non-recognition is not non-existence. Waldman has confused a right with a legal privilege and presented the confusion as a philosophical challenge.

I don’t want to be too hard on him. He was doing a job. When a prominent conservative makes a compelling moral case in a visible venue, someone has to explain why it doesn’t count. You can’t let the argument sit there gaining altitude. So a writer gets assigned, the piece gets published, and the rebuttal is on the record.

The problem is that the weakness of the rebuttal reveals the strength of the original.

Waldman couldn’t engage the actual argument because engaging it honestly leads somewhere he doesn’t want to go. So he rewrote it—misstated the claim, attached Jim Crow to the wrong side of the ledger, and substituted a rhetorical question about God for a serious response.

Thomas didn’t need Waldman’s piece to validate his speech. But Waldman’s scramble to discredit it does exactly that.

When an argument can’t be answered, it gets rewritten. That’s what happened here.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

From: The Rubin Recap —The Sunday return to normalcy

A Supreme Court Justice for all ...

The wit and wisdom of Clarence Thomas, a justice for all

Note from Reynolds: The previous note included the entire speech by Thomas. Here you will find a link to the video, as well as his comments after the address. Rubin’s comments on his site today are included below.

[Dave Rubin]

In last week’s edition, I focused on how Donald Trump has made it uncomfortable for career politicians like Nancy Pelosi to remain in his version of Washington, D.C. In fact, since I launched this Return to Normalcy edition of the newsletter, pretty much everything I’ve focused on is how Trump has, in one way or another, began to usher normalcy back into dominant American life and culture.

He has created an atmosphere for normalcy, but it’s going to take more than Trump if America wants to achieve the level of normalcy that this country once enjoyed — not so long ago — and that was obliterated by the policies and bullying of modern Democrats.

That’s why a speech Clarence Thomas gave this week is so important. The speech is nearly an hour long, but I recommend listening to it all if you have time. Otherwise, I’m going to highlight one key point he made that came later on in the speech, but really underscores the incredible danger of progressivism.

Thomas discussed the origins of progressivism in the U.S., and said it all started with the country’s 28th president, Woodrow Wilson.

“Since Wilson’s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life,” Thomas said. He went on to point out that Wilson and other early progressives argued that it was time for the U.S. to move away from the principles set forth by the Founding Fathers and adopt more European styles of governance. Feels a little too familiar.

“The century of progressivism did not go well,” Thomas continued. “The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our declaration are based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people. It was a terrible mistake to adopt progressivism’s rejection of the declaration’s vision of universal unalienable natural rights.”

Thomas is the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court right now, and is known for speaking very little from the Supreme Court bench. He, by far, uses the fewest words of the nine justices during arguments made before the court. But in the speech he gave at the University of Texas at Austin this week he had a lot to say.

Thomas also participated in a discussion at the university. We played a clip of it on the show this week, and I put it here below because it cuts to the heart of why he decided to give this speech, why he thought it was important to speak out, even if he’s not always comfortable making big public statements.

“I want to say what I actually think, and I think if we don’t stand up and take ownership of our country and take responsible for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think.”

This is exactly what the progressives have done over the last 10-15 years. They’ve tried to control how you think and speak. Remember what happened during COVID, or how they forced pronoun usage upon us. There are dozens of other examples.

“Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive,” Thomas said at one point. Wise words. I haven’t said it in a while, but for a long time I talked about the excesses of what I called “the regressive left.” This is exactly what Donald Trump diametrically opposes, and what Thomas bravely speaks out about. I point all of this out in the hopes that it inspires you, even in some small way, to say what you actually think, so that we — we the people — don’t lose ownership of our country. So that we can have a normal America.

Clarence Thomas Makes Crowd Go Quiet w/ This Chilling Warning

Read more from The Rubin Report here: https://rumble.com/RubinReport

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Justice Clarence Thomas Address at the University of Texas at Austin

April 16, 2026

Summary

In this address at the University of Texas at Austin on April 16, 2026, Justice Clarence Thomas reflects on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and argues that America’s founding principles remain the only secure basis for liberty, dignity, and self-government. Drawing from his own upbringing in segregated Georgia, he says the truths of the Declaration were never abstract to him. They were lived convictions: that all men are created equal, that rights come from God rather than government, and that human dignity cannot be erased by unjust laws or hostile rulers.

Thomas argues that the real force of the Declaration lies not only in its words, but in the courage of the men who signed it and pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.” He says America’s crisis today is not mainly intellectual confusion, but a lack of moral courage and devotion to principle. He contrasts the founding vision with progressivism, which he portrays as hostile to natural rights and too willing to place human freedom at the mercy of the state. Throughout, he insists that liberty cannot survive without sacrifice, citizenship requires responsibility, and the next generation must be willing to stand publicly and personally for what is true, even at a cost.

Key Takeaways

Justice Thomas frames the Declaration of Independence as the moral foundation of the American republic.

He argues that human equality and unalienable rights come from God, not from government.

He recalls learning these truths not from abstraction, but from family, church, and lived experience under segregation.

He says the Declaration gave Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr. the moral ground to challenge slavery and segregation.

He emphasizes that the most important part of the Declaration may be its closing pledge: “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

He argues that principles without courage and sacrifice are only words on paper.

He praises the devotion of the Founders, soldiers, families, and ordinary Americans who sustained the country through hardship and war.

He warns that many in public life speak nobly but lack the devotion required to do what is right when it becomes costly.

He points to cowardice, conformity, and love of approval as recurring threats to moral leadership.

He reflects on Plessy v. Ferguson as an example of how obvious injustice can endure when those in authority lack courage.

He argues that rights are prior to government, and that government exists to secure them, not create them.

He presents the Constitution as the means of government, and the Declaration as the statement of government’s ends.

He stresses that limited government, separation of powers, and federalism exist to restrain abuses of power.

He argues that progressivism rejects the founding’s view of natural rights and substitutes state power for transcendent moral truth.

He portrays Woodrow Wilson-style progressivism as foreign to the American tradition and dangerous in its consequences.

He links modern statism to the broader 20th-century disasters produced by ideologies that denied permanent human rights.

He says America’s future depends less on clever debate than on the willingness of citizens to stand for truth in daily life.

He calls on students and citizens to show courage in classrooms, workplaces, communities, school boards, and public life.

He argues that courage, like cowardice, becomes a habit.

He closes by urging Americans not merely to celebrate the Declaration, but to defend it, live by it, and recommit themselves to its ideals.

================= Thomas Address (emphasis added) =================

Thank you all very much. President Davis, Provost Inboden, Dean Dyer, faculty, students, and honored guests, I thank each of you for being here. And I thank the school and the officials here for the invitation to visit the University of Texas at Austin.

My wife, Virginia, and I are pleased to be here to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. If my memory serves me, this is only my second visit to the University of Texas, and this is the first visit at the invitation of the university.

But I have hired and worked with a number of outstanding young people associated with this university. My first was now-Chief Judge Greg Maggs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, who was a fairly new faculty member at the law school when I became a member of the Court. He took a leave of absence to help me as a law clerk during the second half of my first term.

My first UT graduate to serve as a law clerk was Greg Coleman three decades ago. Greg went on to become the first Solicitor General of the State of Texas. He was simply outstanding, as was his son Reed, who also was a graduate of the law school here and who was equally outstanding.

Greg’s widow and our very dear friend Stephanie are with us today. Stephanie, thank you, and thanks for being such a good friend.

Both Greg and his son Reed clerked for my dear friend Judge Edith Jones, also a graduate of UT Law School. I greatly admire Judge Jones. She is one of my heroes, and I admire her as a person and as a jurist. I am grateful that she can be here today.

A number of my former clerks are also here. I cannot tell you which ones, so let me ask them to stand to be recognized.

So in my chambers, UT and UT Law School are very well represented. I hope that my talk today will help in some small way to inaugurate another great initiative, the State of Texas’s plan to restore the teaching of civics and Western civilization to a central place in its flagship university.

I am grateful and honored to have been invited by Justin Dyer, the dean of the new School of Civic Leadership. I am also grateful for the assistance of my former law clerk, Professor John Yoo, who has spent the last three decades at Berkeley Law School but is now joining Justin and his team here at the University of Texas.

The school’s stated mission is to help students encounter the distinct inheritance of Western civilization and the American constitutional tradition as part of a larger quest for wisdom about how to live and how to lead. Your plans could not come at a more important moment for our nation, when, as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the very values announced in it have fallen out of favor.

It is my sincere hope that your work to revitalize the teaching and research of Western civilization and the American constitutional tradition will lead the way in the reform of our nation’s colleges and universities. And I hope that your example will help rejuvenate our fellow citizens’ commitment to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

I always seem to enjoy my travels to this amazing state. My wife, Virginia, and I have many wonderful friends and acquaintances here. And it is so special to have our dear friends Harlan and Kathy Crow join us today.

One of the features of the state that stands out is the way Texans talk about it. What comes through is the sustained and sustaining affection they have for their home state. That reverential feeling for and attachment to Texas is to be respected and admired, and, if possible, emulated.

This affection is similar to the attachment that I grew to have for my home state of Georgia, and certainly for our country, despite the indelible mark of segregation and its companion evils. I was proud to say that I was American by birth and Georgian by the grace of God. It was not uncommon to hear others openly proclaim their allegiance to God and country.

At our grammar school, St. Benedict’s, we started each school day by lining up two by two and class by class in the schoolyard to watch the raising of our flag and to say the Pledge of Allegiance before silently marching to our respective classrooms.

Even as so much of our God-given and constitutional rights were denied us, we still faithfully said the Pledge of Allegiance, memorized the Preamble to the Constitution, and yearned for the fulfillment of its promised ideals.

Sadly, these sentiments are not as widely shared among our fellow citizens today, and they certainly do not seem to have the sustaining strength that they had back then. In fact, all too often, the sentiments tend toward cynicism, rejection, hostility, and animus toward our country and its ideals.

With the foregoing in mind, I would like to begin by addressing my first encounter with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is perhaps not what you would immediately think.

The second paragraph of the Declaration proclaims, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Throughout my youth, these truths were articles of faith that were impervious to bigotry and discrimination.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines self-evident as “obviously true and requiring no proof, argument, or explanation.” Whether they had a divine source or a worldly one, they were never questioned. They were the Holy Grail, the North Star, the rock, immovable and unquestioned.

Despite the multiplicity of laws and customs that reeked of bigotry, it was universally believed among those Blacks with whom I lived, and who had very little or no formal education, that in God’s eyes and under our Constitution, we were equal. This was also the case with my nuns, most of whom were Irish immigrants.

At home, at school, and at church, we were taught that we are inherently equal, that equality came from God, and that it could not be diminished by man. We were made in the image and likeness of God. That proposition was not debatable and was beyond the power of man to alter.

Others with power and animus could treat us as unequal, but they lacked the divine power to make us so. Somehow, without formal education, the older people knew that these God-given or natural rights preceded and transcended governmental power or authority.

When you lived in a segregated world with palpable discrimination, and the governments nearest to you enforced laws and customs that promoted unequal treatment, it was obvious that your rights or your dignity did not come from those governments, but rather from God.

Though not a literate man, my grandfather often spoke of our rights and obligations coming from God, not from the architects of segregation and discrimination. Men were not angels. They were subject to the constraints of antecedent rights, and we were not subject to those men, even as we were subjected to their whims.

We knew that life, liberty, and property were sacrosanct. Those truths were self-evident to the adults in our lives and were taught to us as indelible, undeniable truths. Those around us could endure the insults of segregation with dignity because they knew that in God’s eyes, they were equal.

All too often, there is an unfortunate tendency when discussing the Declaration to make these self-evident truths and first principles of government obscure. Intellectuals want you to believe that our founding principles are matters of esoteric philosophy or sophisticated debate. Even those who support them too often talk about them as if they were academic playthings.

They overcomplicate them, take the spirit out of them, and discuss them in a way that puts us to sleep. But the principles of the Declaration of Independence, as I encountered them, are a way of life. They are not an abstract theory that you only learn in college or law school, but the basic premises of our Constitution and government that you can learn from the people all around you.

When Alexis de Tocqueville visited early America from France, he was struck that there was no country in the civilized world where people were less occupied with philosophy than the United States. But there was likewise no country where the principles of the Declaration were more deeply ingrained or more fiercely defended than those same United States.

That is the sense in which I knew the principles of the Declaration in my childhood. That is the only sense in which those principles can sustain our country. And that is the sense in which I will speak to you about those principles today.

I believe now, as I did then, that the Declaration of 1776 provides us with the principles to guide us as citizens of our republic. Even in this time of questioning and criticism of our founding, we should not forget that the Declaration established the principles that produced, despite all of our imperfections, our miscues, and our tragic mistakes, the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in the history of the world.

It provided the moral principles by which Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr. would criticize the institutions of slavery and segregation. The Declaration, in fact, along with the Gospels, is one of the greatest anti-slavery documents in the history of Western civilization.

It did not establish a form of government. That was the work of the Constitution that followed. But it stated the purpose of government. The Declaration made it clear in prose that the purpose of government is to protect our God-given unalienable rights, rights that all individuals equally possess.

As Abraham Lincoln declared in 1858, in the midst of his great debates with Stephen Douglas, “Drop every paltry, insignificant thought for any man’s success. It is nothing. I am nothing. Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of humanity, the Declaration of American Independence.”

The ideas of the Declaration are so powerful that our nation could not coexist with the contradiction created by the great evil of slavery. Those principles were so powerful that hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died in the Civil War to make men free. Those ideas have been so powerful that they convinced our nation to finally end segregation.

They continue to be so powerful today that they have inspired people throughout the world to throw off the shackles of their own oppressors. And it all began with our founders declaring in 1776 that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

We should also not forget the important sentence that follows: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The principle of consent follows from the principle of equality. We the people can never legitimately consent to the violation of our God-given equality.

However, when I encounter the Declaration of Independence anew today, I am most struck by the final sentence. It can be easy to forget, 250 years later, the courage it took for those 56 men to sign the Declaration. Arguably, those men committed treason against the king, risking death at the hands of an empire far mightier than the newborn United States.

They thus concluded with the memorable final sentence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

I will say it again: we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Recently, I came across a definition of courage that is attributed to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” In essence, the signers of the Declaration were saying that they were willing to die for the principles they were asserting, the supreme act of courage. Those principles were more important than their fear.

Nothing in the Declaration of Independence, I now realize, matters without that final sentence. Without that sentence, the rest of the Declaration is but mere words on parchment paper. Nice words, but nonetheless just words. What changed the world was not the words, but the commitment and spirit of the people who were willing to labor, sacrifice, and even give their lives, what Lincoln at Gettysburg called “the last full measure of devotion,” for the Declaration’s principles.

It is that devotion to which we owe our rich inheritance. It was that devotion that sustained the Founders and the Continental Army as they fought and won the Revolutionary War, braved the winter at Valley Forge, crossed the Delaware, and defeated an army many times their number and firepower to win their freedom.

It was that devotion that Nathan Hale expressed when, before being executed by the British, he reportedly said, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for this country.”

It was that devotion that Patrick Henry invoked when he stood before the Virginia Convention and asked, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but for me, give me liberty or give me death.”

That devotion has driven the great achievements and heroism of Americans in the 250 years since. Think of the frontiersmen who settled the West. Think of the families who built their little towns on the prairies. Think of the women who raised their children to love God and country and sent them off to fight wars.

Think of the soldiers on the battlefields of the Civil War who sang, “As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.” Think of the innovators and laborers and engineers who, Tocqueville observed, were so infused with patriotism that they felt every triumph for their country as a triumph in their personal lives.

Think of how that devotion carried us from Independence Hall to Flanders Field and to the beaches of Normandy. Think of the memorable scene in Band of Brothers when the American soldiers arrived at a concentration camp, saw the suffering, emaciated, desperate prisoners, unlocked the gates, and gave them food and blankets and warm embraces. The soldiers looked around and knew in their hearts that this is why we fight.

Think of the passengers of Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11, or the young men and women whom we send in harm’s way even as we sit here today.

Think of my grandparents who heroically, quietly, without fanfare, sat my brother and me down at the kitchen table in August 1955 and committed the rest of their lives to us so that we could have a chance. They told us, “We don’t have no education and no chance, but you boys are going to have a chance. But we’re going to devote the rest of our lives to you boys.”

It was their devotion, their love, their dedication to raising us right, that made the difference, not the words, though the words expressed as best they could what they intended to do. Their devotion is what mattered.

Similarly, it is the devotion expressed in the final sentence of the Declaration, the willingness to do anything for our principles, that has throughout American history been most indispensable. It is that devotion that we are missing today, and that we must find in our hearts if this nation is to endure.

I arrived in Washington, D.C., 47 years ago. It is hard to believe. I arrived as a staffer for Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri in 1979, telling myself that the job on Capitol Hill would be a short stop on my way home to Savannah, Georgia.

I then joined the executive branch during the Reagan administration, served in two federal agencies for nearly a decade, served as a judge on the federal Court of Appeals, and have for the past 34 years served on the Supreme Court.

Since the day I arrived in Washington, there was never a shortage of people espousing noble purposes, saying all the right things. All around me there have been people full of promises, claiming a commitment to some righteous cause, to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety, or to the original meaning of the Constitution.

These people can be just as high-minded as the men who signed the Declaration. They can mouth the words of the Declaration and parrot its principles. They can write essays and talk at conferences about the Declaration with the best of them.

All too often, however, this was but lip service, camouflaged by grand theories in the tall grass of big words and eloquent phrases. What seemed to be lacking, however, was that devotion.

People gain positions of authority, and you learn who they really are. To paraphrase something I recently read, combat strips us down to our essentials. Once in the spotlight, in that combat, many people fall prey to the lures that are set up to turn them away from their previously untested principles.

They become petrified by criticism, so fearful of negative attention that they find ways to avoid doing the right thing. Or they fall prey to the enchanting siren songs of flattery and become so bewitched by praise that they will desperately seek to conform accordingly.

They are enticed by access to things that were previously unavailable to them. They get so swept up in the euphoria of acclamation and acceptance that they put aside their convictions. They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass.

They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country.

It did not take me long in Washington to stop wondering why the Supreme Court took 60 years to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that endorsed government-enforced racial segregation and validated the Jim Crow South that I grew up in.

It could not possibly have taken my Court 60 years to know that Plessy was a hideous wrong and that racial discrimination was grossly incompatible with our colorblind Constitution. The justices must have known it all along. The right thing to do, as Justice Harlan spelled out in his lone dissent, was obvious, as it so often is.

Perhaps what stood in the way was cowardice. The justices may have been afraid of the societal consequences. They may have been afraid of coming under political fire. They may have been afraid of losing their social standing. They may have been afraid of bad press. They could have been concerned that if they began to enforce a colorblind Constitution, they would have to address interracial marriage next.

But in any case, for 60 disgraceful years, they made American children like me grow up in a racial caste system because it was easier to do nothing than to do the right thing.

When Americans look to Washington and wonder why it so often disappoints, it is not because there are too few people who know what is right. It is not because we lack the intellect or the capacity or the talent. It is instead because there are too few people who are willing to do what it takes to do the right thing, to sacrifice the popularity, flattery, comfort, and security that are the purchase price for principle.

It is because too few of us reflect, and reflect deeply, the courage and commitment of that final sentence of the Declaration. And so many seem to have forgotten how much others have sacrificed so that this nation could exist and endure.

I will state this more poignantly: Do any of us have what it took for our young soldiers to storm Normandy Beach, to fight at Guadalcanal, to later fight at Chosin Reservoir? If we cannot say that we have the courage required of these young soldiers in battle to defend our founding principles, then how do we preserve these principles and this republic?

Until we have a devotion that matches the courage of those who made this country possible, I seriously doubt any amount of study or development of insights about our Constitution will make much difference. There is a world of difference between what it takes to score academic points and what it takes to protect and defend the Constitution as we are sworn to do.

I have faced this struggle myself. About 43 years ago, in the early spring of 1983, I was at the lowest point in my life. I had just buried both of my grandparents, the man and woman who raised me, and the two greatest people I have ever known.

I was broke. I was living in, and nearly evicted from, a cockroach-infested apartment. I could not pay my credit card bills on time. I would soon sell my car to pay my son’s tuition. I was being constantly attacked by the media and Congress because, as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I did not bow to the then-prevailing orthodoxy on race.

At that point, I asked myself a simple question: What are the principles worth? What are your principles worth to you?

My answer then was the same I would give today. They are worth life itself.

What are those principles? They are the same principles in the Declaration. They were bequeathed to me by my grandparents and reinforced by my nuns and my faith.

In God’s eyes, we are equal. We are all equally created in the image and likeness of God. We are all endowed with the natural rights to life, liberty, and happiness. Our rights and our dignity are inherent. They do not come from others, and they do not come from the government.

And our government derives its legitimacy and its authority from our consent. We do not derive our rights from our government.

The primacy of our rights in relation to our government is crucial in reconciling the moral words of the Declaration with our Constitution and our history. None of our rights come from the government. All of the government’s authority comes from our consent.

And the structure and limited role of government is to ensure that it does not exceed the authority to which we have consented or intrude on our natural rights.

The Constitution is the means of government. It is the Declaration that announces the ends of government.

The Constitution achieves this purpose by protecting our natural rights and our liberties from concentrated power and excessive democracy. Our Constitution creates a separation of powers and federalism, truly for the first time in modern history, to prevent the government from becoming so strong that it threatens our natural rights.

Federalist No. 10 proposed the idea that the great threat to our rights comes from the majority faction. Human history teaches us, alas, that numerical majorities frequently seek to control government and use the state to violate the rights of the minority.

Because man is fallen, and the desire for power was, as James Madison described it, “sown in the nature of man,” government had to be limited. For, as Madison also said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But alas, men are not angels.

The slaveholders used the power of government to deny the fundamental natural rights of the slaves. The segregationists used the state to oppress freed men and women, including my ancestors.

As we meet today, it is unclear whether these principles will endure. At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominent among them the 28th president of our country, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism.

Since Wilson’s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.

Progressivism was not native to America. Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, whose state-centric society they admired. Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power.

He acknowledged that it was a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principle, and offering none but what were, to our minds, alien ideas. He thus described America, still stuck with its original system of government, as “slow to see the superiority of the European system.”

Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement, with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War, to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration. Progressives strove to undo the Declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident.

To Wilson, the unalienable rights of the individual were “a lot of nonsense.” Wilson redefined liberty not as a natural right antecedent to government, but as “the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests.” In other words, liberty no longer preceded government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of government. The government, as Wilson reconceived it, would be “beneficent and indispensable.”

Progressives such as John Dewey attacked the Framers for believing that their ideas were immutable truth, good for all times and places, when instead they were, according to him, historically conditioned and relevant only in their own time.

Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.

You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people. Before he entered politics, Wilson described the American people as “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, and foolish.” He lamented that we do too much by vote and too little by expert rule.

He proposed that the people be ruled by administrators who use them as tools. He once again aspired to be like Germany, where the people, he said admiringly, were docile and acquiescent.

The century of progressivism did not go well. The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century the world has ever seen: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao.

All were intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration is based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.

It was a terrible mistake to adopt progressivism’s rejection of the Declaration’s vision of universal, unalienable natural rights. Wilson’s claim that natural rights must give way to historical progress could justify the greatest mistakes in our history.

In Plessy v. Ferguson, my Court upheld Louisiana’s system of racial segregation because “separate but equal,” it observed, was reasonable in light of the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort and the preservation of the public peace and good order.

It comes as no surprise that the progressives embraced eugenics. Progressives believed that Darwinian science, the idea of ever-advancing progress written into biology itself, had proven the inherent superiority and inferiority of the races.

It was only a small step for Wilson to re-segregate the federal workforce. It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce, upheld by my Court in Buck v. Bell in an opinion written by no less a figure than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

We can argue over whether you believe in immutable, absolute natural rights or the Wilsonian idea of ever-progressing history. Indeed, your School of Civic Leadership was created to host just such arguments. But let me ask you to consider the consequences.

European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a Lockean world with its weak decentralized government and strong individual rights. They say our 18th-century Declaration has prevented us from progressing to higher forms of government.

But we were fortunate not to trade our Lockean bonds for the supposedly enlightened world of Hegel, Marx, and their followers. Fascism, which after all was National Socialism, triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions. The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China proceeded to kill more tens of millions of their own people.

This is what happens when natural rights give way to the higher good of notions of history, progress, or, as Thomas Sowell has written, “the visions of the anointed.”

None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the Declaration. Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule, root and branch.

Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive. As Calvin Coolidge said on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress, can be made beyond these propositions.”

“If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which they can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.”

When Abraham Lincoln addressed the assembled crowd at Gettysburg, they had gathered to memorialize the past, but Lincoln’s address urged them not to do so with complacency. Instead, Lincoln said they should look to the past as inspiration to take them to greater heights in the future:

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

As we gather to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration, it may be tempting to do so as passive spectators. It may be tempting to enjoy our tea and crumpets, treat the Declaration like a shiny object or a keepsake, and listen to the sound of our own voices.

We could get into debates over whose conception of the founding is better, over how we are so much better than our founders were, over what we would do differently. We could be careful not to do anything that exposes us to criticism, costs us friends, or hurts our career prospects.

But in my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration had, so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs.

Each of you will have opportunities to be courageous every day, whether your calling in life is as a day laborer, a stay-at-home mom, a small business owner, an educator, an office worker, a judge, or in some other endeavor.

It may mean speaking up in class tomorrow when someone around you expects you to live by lies. It may mean confronting today’s fashionable bigotries, such as anti-Semitism. It may mean standing up for your religion when it is mocked and disparaged by a professor. It may mean not budging on your principles when it will entail losing friends or being ostracized.

It may mean running for your school board when you see that they are teaching your children to hate your values and our country. It may mean turning down a job offer that requires you to make moral or ethical compromises.

One thing I do know to be true: it will mean waking up every day with the resolve to withstand unfair criticism and attacks. These are the choices that will confront you, and you must decide whether to respond with timidity or with courage, as the signers of the Declaration did.

It will, of course, not be easy. It never is. But if, like me, you need a greater source of strength than yourselves, you will need to rely on your faith to guide and sustain you through it all.

You will disappoint people you thought were friends and endure personal attacks, as well as attacks on those you care about. But if you stand, you will find that courage, like cowardice, can be habit-forming, and it will become a part of your life and a part of who you are. And I may dare say, it is liberating.

You will also be a living example for others to emulate.

So by all means, celebrate the Declaration of Independence. It is the most important act of American history, the foundation of our Constitution, and, as Lincoln said, the sheet anchor of our republic.

But I implore you to celebrate it by standing up for it, by defending it, and by recommitting yourselves to living up to its ideals. Channel the courage of the men who faced down a king and signed it, or a president who led the nation in a civil war rather than permit this house to be divided by the great contradiction of slavery.

Take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure. And with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, let us mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless our country.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment