I Believe

• Why Do We Spend So Much on Defense?

  Why do we spend so much on defense?Opening Scene – Key West, 1948[Sound Design: Waves crashing, seagulls squawking.]Narrator: It’s March 1948, and the tropical heat of Key West, Florida, presses against a group of men in khaki uniforms and dark blue service caps. They sit around a long table in what was once a naval officers’ club, now repurposed for one of the most important meetings in US military history.This is where the fate of America’s post-World War II military structure is being decided in a meeting known as the Key West Agreement. Before this meeting, President Harry S. Truman had signed the National Security Act of 1947 into law. It came into effect on September 18, 1947. Among other directives, the act created the Air Force, separated the Marine Corps as its own service, and merged the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force into one big, happy Department of Defense family.Except they were all unhappy. At the head of the table sat the first-ever Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal. He was tasked with bringing order to the growing tensions between the military services. There’s no official transcript of this meeting, but Forrestal’s message was clear. He wasn’t here to debate; he was here to decide.Forrestal (Actor’s Voice): “Gentlemen, this nation cannot afford inefficiency in its military forces. The roles and missions of each service must be clearly defined, or we risk wasting taxpayer dollars on duplicative efforts. The President expects solutions today, not another fight over who controls what.”Narrator: It was a polite way of saying, “Stop the infighting.” The war was over. The Soviets were the new enemy. And America needed a plan.The Fight Over Military RolesNarrator: The stakes couldn’t have been higher. World War II had ended just three years earlier, and now, the services were battling over bureaucracy.The Air Force, freshly carved out of the Army in 1947, wanted exclusive control over air operations, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons. Furious at the idea of losing its aircraft carriers, the Navy fought to keep its fleet air arm. The Marine Corps wanted no part of being absorbed into the Army.The Army, which had spent the war defining large-scale land combat, was now struggling for relevance in a world obsessed with air power and nuclear bombs.[Sound Design: Ice clinking in glasses, the scratch of pens on paper.]Military Officer (Actor’s Voice): "Mr. Secretary, how do you want to handle this?"[Sound Design: Chair creaks. A brief pause. Papers being folded shut. Silence hangs for a moment, then quiet murmurs of dissatisfaction.]Forrestal (Actor’s Voice): “The Air Force will control strategic bombing and nuclear weapons delivery. The Navy retains control of aircraft carriers and fleet operations. The Army’s role remains ground warfare and land-based air defense. The Marine Corps will not become part of the Army.”Narrator: Forrestal had one goal. He intended to divide responsibilities before the inter-service feuding weakened America’s military effectiveness.This was the compromise. The Navy kept its carriers and agreed not to pursue its own strategic air force. The Air Force agreed not to pursue carrier aviation. Everyone agreed the Marine Corps would not become a part of the Army.All the services had vital peacetime tasks except the largest. The Air Force would operate the nation’s global strike weapons and stand watch over the homeland. The Navy would protect shipping lanes. The Marine Corps would project decisive combat power within days of notification.The Army, the largest service and used to special treatment, was left wondering whether its traditional role would fade away. And yet, the agreement set the foundation for American defense spending for generations. Instead of reducing redundancy, it baked in inter-service rivalry. Instead of cutting costs, it ensured every branch would fight to justify its share of the budget. And over the next few years, that fight would escalate and become public. [Sound Design: A military phone rings in the background.]While the generals and admirals were busy carving up the military’s future, another war was brewing. In Asia.[Sound Design: The hum of a military transport plane. Fade to silence.]The Forgotten Warning – Korea, 1949Narrator: The Korean Peninsula was spiraling toward war a year after the Key West Agreement. The US had withdrawn most of its forces from South Korea, assuming that a small advisory mission would be enough to keep order.In Washington, the focus was shifting toward nuclear weapons and strategic deterrence. Ground forces and conventional war were yesterday’s thinking. The real threat was the Soviet Union and its growing atomic arsenal.To make the matter more urgent, the Soviets conducted their first successful test of a nuclear weapon in August 1949. The West had lost its dominance. Then, in January 1950, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson defined America’s vital security interests in the Pacific. He excluded Korea from that list.But by the time Washington realized Korea wasn’t just another skirmish, it was too late. A Soviet-backed North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950, launching a war that the US wasn’t prepared for.And this is where General Matthew Ridgway enters the picture. He was the man who would change America’s military spending forever.[Sound Design: Artillery explosions in the distance. The rhythmic thumping of helicopter blades overhead.]Ridgway’s War – 1950Narrator: December 1950. The war was going badly. US and UN forces were retreating. The Chinese had entered the war, pushing American troops into a brutal winter retreat. Morale had collapsed. Soldiers were exhausted. Supplies were low. The US commander had been killed in a traffic incident.Amidst the turmoil, the Army chose a new commander, Matthew Ridgway. During World War II, Ridgway commanded the 82nd Airborne Division at Normandy and the XVIII Airborne Corps during the Ardennes Offensive. Upon taking command, Ridgway assessed the situation. He stated:Ridgway (Actor’s Voice): “The men I met along the road, those I stopped to talk to, all conveyed to me a conviction that this was a bewildered army, not sure of itself or its leaders, not sure what they were doing there. The leadership I found in many instances sadly lacking, and I said so.”Narrator: Many wondered whether America would leave. This list ranged from South Korean national leadership to soldiers on the ground. Ridgway expressed his intent and stated:Ridgway (Actor’s Voice): “I’ve come to stay.”Narrator: Ridgway took over the 8th Army after General Walton Walker’s death and immediately changed everything. He re-energized the troops, stopped the retreat, and launched a counteroffensive. By early 1951, he had stabilized the front and turned the tide. The Forgotten War would end in a stalemate rather than a decisive loss. But his biggest impact wasn’t just on the battlefield. It was what he did after the war.The Birth of Permanent Military SpendingNarrator: After Korea, Ridgway became Chief of Staff of the Army. And this is where he made his mark. Not with a rifle, but with politics.President Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself a former Army officer who led the Allies to victory in Europe, aimed to balance military commitments with economic sustainability. He knew that without military drawdown, America would run deficits due to military funding. He intended to cut the Army and shift spending toward the other services and the global strike weapons that defend America’s homeland. He sought troop reductions in Europe and intended to share defense responsibilities with NATO allies. Eisenhower stated, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a military-industrial complex.Ridgway publicly fought back. He argued the US needed permanent large ground forces to handle conflicts like Korea. He testified before Congress, pushing back against budget cuts and warning against over-reliance on nuclear deterrence.Ridgway won out. Presented with two conflicting arguments, Congress did what it does best. It gridlocked. The Army didn’t shrink. Military budgets remained high. And America locked itself into a cycle of permanent defense spending. This defense spending premise continues today.People like to say the US spends so much on defense because we have to “fight two wars at once” or “project power.” That’s wrong. Those policies were the result of high defense spending, not the cause.The real reason was that Matthew Ridgway and others like him made sure each military service had a justification for more funding, even when nuclear deterrence made massive peacetime ground forces unnecessary.And that’s the story of why we spend so much on defense.Seventy-five years later, America is still locked into this model. But what happens when the world changes and we don’t?Fast Forward to TodayOur high defense spending had an unintended consequence. America had such a large defense capability that some partner nations chose to put less effort into theirs. Now, America wants NATO and Europe to spend more to contribute to their own defense. This is an echo of President Eisenhower in the 1950s. And despite the fact that NATO has only once activated the Joint Defense Act, and that was to come to the aid of the United States in Afghanistan, some call for us to leave NATO.But in a twist that defies logic, those who call for America to reduce our commitment to partner nations still call for us to maintain high defense spending.These two positions contradict.One valid position would be to strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations. One generation has no right to bind another generation with debt. The dead have no rights over the living.This position would acknowledge that we must reduce defense spending during peacetime. A result of this position would be reduced support for partner nations, requiring our partners to increase their capability.A countering valid position would be to maintain our high defense commitment to our partner nations. Security, economics, and influence are all tied together. This position would acknowledge that if America will be great, we need to maintain global leadership. We must act alone and with partner nations to create favorable conditions and gain and maintain freedom of action and influence. Nations form and maintain coalitions and international partnerships not out of altruism but as a strategic effort to enhance their own strength, stability, and interests.But threatening and divorcing our long-term partners while still increasing debt for future generations is both unsound and unwise.Is a country that burdens its future generations with debt while weakening its alliances making itself great again?May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  13:11
• Should We Dramatically Cut the Size of Government?

  Intro…sounds of echoing hooves on stone, a cart creaks, lanterns glow, a horse pulls steady and slow.1801. The Revolution’s Philosopher Takes PowerIt's March 4, 1801. A cold wind sweeps through the muddy streets of Washington, D.C., a rough, partially built capital city. Philosopher, writer, and revolutionary Thomas Jefferson is about to become America’s third president. As he stood before the partially finished Capitol, the weight of history settled on his shoulders. Demonstrating simplicity, Jefferson wore plain clothes instead of a monarch’s suit. Unlike his predecessors, who arrived in grand carriages, Jefferson walked from his room to the Capitol. When he arrived, nearly a thousand people filled the Senate Chamber, waiting.This wasn’t just another transfer of power. It was a test. The election had been bitterly contested, newspapers spreading lies to the darkest corners of the nation. But he had prevailed. Now, America faced a question: Would the young republic stay true to its founding ideals or drift toward the centralized power Jefferson feared?(Sounds; a horse neighs in the distance…)We remember Jefferson not just as a president, but as a great philosopher. He devoted his life to contemplating freedom, governance, and human rights. He upheld the liberal ideal that everyone is born with natural rights no government can take away. His ideas laid America’s foundation. Inspired by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Jefferson regarded government not as an instrument of control, but a protector of individual freedom.Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence weren’t politics; they were principles of governance and philosophy. He carefully crafted the Declaration to define what America stood for. More than two centuries later, those ideas still shape our views on freedom, representation, and government.Jefferson’s philosophy shaped America from our earliest days. His principles still inspire discussions about freedom and our democratic republic.Moving from philosophy to practical matters, Jefferson believed in limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty.He championed small government, lower taxes, minimal public debt, and strict adherence to the Constitution. He viewed centralized power and extensive government intervention as threats to individual freedom and pursued policies to limit federal influence, reduce government size, and preserve states’ rights and personal liberty.(Ambient crowd sound…)Back to March of 1801. Jefferson stood in the Senate Chamber to deliver an inaugural address defining his presidency.The crowd fell silent.Jefferson spoke passionately about simpler, smaller government. He declared: “a wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another…(and)…shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits…”His speech echoed a 1799 letter to Elbridge Gerry, where he detailed his vision of a disciplined, frugal, and simple government. Every dollar should strengthen the nation’s economic footing, not expand government control to reward political allies. The Shadow of DebtJefferson entered office with a clear vision, but immediately faced a looming crisis: America was drowning in $80 million of debt, an unimaginable sum for a struggling young country.Debt wasn’t just a financial burden. Jefferson believed debt represented bondage, robbing future generations of freedom.  In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Jefferson pondered whether one generation had the right to bind another with debt. He argued that the dead have no rights over the living.If the government kept borrowing, it had to keep taxing. Endless taxing meant Americans would never truly be free. Jefferson feared policies driven by debt obligations rather than the people’s will.Taking office, Jefferson didn’t hesitate. He refused to let the new republic fall into the traps of Europe’s monarchies, where endless spending fueled endless war. Determined, he launched an ambitious plan to slash spending, dismantle bloated government offices, and strip unnecessary costs.He intended to create a government small enough to live within its means, freeing future Americans from borrowed money. Success meant setting a precedent for efficient government. Failure meant endless national debt and expanding federal power.Jefferson’s Radical PlanJefferson saw the military as too big, too expensive, and too dangerous. He believed standing armies led to tyranny, soldiers answering to power, not people. So, he slashed military spending, cutting the army nearly in half. Officers were dismissed, outposts abandoned. Only six Navy ships remained active, enough to protect trade, not wage war. The rest sat idle.Critics warned Jefferson was leaving America defenseless, vulnerable to Britain, France, or pirates. Jefferson didn’t flinch. He envisioned a citizen-led defense, believing a large military was a threat rather than protection.While ruthless with military budgets, he trimmed the rest of government more gently. His aim wasn’t to gut government, but to prevent it from growing. Military savings funded debt reduction, the republic’s real enemy.For Jefferson, this wasn’t just about money. As a philosopher, he wanted government out of people’s lives, power resting with citizens. To that end, he fought against a bloated army and an overreaching federal system.A Revolutionary Tax OverhaulJefferson saw taxes as tools of government control. He quickly eliminated the whiskey tax, a hated levy that sparked rebellion in the 1790s. To Jefferson, the idea that the government would send troops against its own people over taxes was a disgrace.He didn’t stop there. Jefferson aimed to reshape federal revenue entirely. Instead of direct taxes, he preferred customs duties, or what we would today call tariffs.At the time, material needs were modest, social programs nonexistent, infrastructure minimal. Federal tax needs were low.Jefferson proposed there would be no income tax, property tax, or internal revenue taxes during peacetime. Government would be funded only by trade. He bet a thriving economy with goods moving through American ports would suffice.Critics warned tariffs made America vulnerable. Reduced imports meant reduced revenue. Others argued tariffs raised consumer prices. Jefferson stood firm.Mostly, his plan succeeded. Government stayed afloat, people kept more money, and he cut the national debt in half. Triumph and IronyJefferson reduced the national debt from $80 million to $57 million his first two years in office. Americans celebrated. It was proof his vision worked.Yet Jefferson soon faced contradiction. In 1803, Napoleon offered the Louisiana territory, 827,000 square miles, for $15 million. The Constitution gave no clear authority for this purchase.Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, faced a philosophical crisis. He suddenly found himself arguing in favor of implied powers that he had long opposed. Ultimately, his practical vision of freedom won out. He justified the Louisiana Purchase as securing liberty for future generations.With one stroke of the pen, America doubled in size. He opened vast new lands for settlement, farming, and expansion.Critics highlighted the contradiction. How could Jefferson, who spent years shrinking government, justify this massive federal purchase?Jefferson believed this purchase didn’t expand government power, but opportunity. More land meant more self-sufficient citizens and less European interference.Legacy of the Small-Government Philosopher RevolutionaryJefferson’s presidency leaves a powerful legacy. His dramatic cuts and bold ideas about limited government continue to shape American debates even today.Much has changed in America in the last two hundred and twenty-four years. Roads stretch from coast to coast. Power lines hum with energy. The internet connects even the most remote corners of the country. Education shapes the next generation. Social security ensures no one is left behind in old age. All of it; our infrastructure, our systems, our stability, comes at a cost.But Jefferson’s fierce dedication to freedom and simplicity defined an era and makes us question what is possible today.Should we dramatically cut the size of government? On the one hand, we’ve forgotten Jefferson’s philosophical principle that one generation has no right to bind another generation with debt. The dead have no rights over the living. Yet, every president since 1940 has increased the national debt. Every president. Both parties.And on the other, each generation uses, and must pay to maintain, national infrastructure. Roads and telecommunications systems are infrastructure. Education and training is infrastructure. Societal stability is infrastructure. We can’t eliminate federal taxes and still maintain our infrastructure. There is no free lunch.We can’t claim to be Jeffersonian conservatives and cut taxes on the rich, expanding government control to reward our political allies. Jefferson didn’t cut taxes for his political allies. He intended to strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations. And Jefferson didn’t cut the size of the federal workforce just to slash jobs. He was guided by philosophy. Cutting the federal workforce while taking steps that increase the federal debt and pass the burden of debt on to future generations is against his philosophy. Only four presidents have monuments on the National Mall in Washington D.C. Washington, who helped birth an America at war, and then gave that power back to the people of the republic. Lincoln, who reunited a nation torn apart from our dispute over whether people from any station of birth have a right to the fruits of their labor. FDR, who championed the infrastructure that protects working Americans.And Jefferson, the revolution’s philosopher, who sought to safeguard every American’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through limited government, lower taxes, minimal public debt, and unwavering commitment to the Constitution.So…should we dramatically cut the size of government? After some reflection, that seems to be the wrong question to ask.Should we strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations?May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  13:17
• Ruthless Capitalists & Bleeding Heart Liberals - Unite for Ukraine!

  Petro Kalnyshevsky: The Last CossackCurtain up. The stage is set. A warrior, a nation, and a betrayal that would echo for centuries.Imagine. A man who has spent a lifetime fighting for his people, riding into battle, outmaneuvering empires, defending his homeland. He commands warriors, negotiates with kings, and builds a thriving nation from the wild steppe. And then, at 85 years old, after everything he’s given, his so-called ally betrays him.One moment, he was the leader of the fiercest, freest people in Eastern Europe. The next, a prisoner, dragged away in chains, locked in a stone cell, left to rot in the cold, endless dark.This is the story of Peter Ivanovich Kalnyshevsky, the last leader of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, betrayed by the Russians. He lived through the rise and fall of a nation and spent 25 years in confinement, refusing to break.A Warrior’s RiseKalnyshevsky was born in the late 1600s in what is now central Ukraine, a land of vast, untamed wilderness where survival meant strength. From a young age, he was drawn to the life of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the wild horsemen of the steppe. They answered to no king or emperor. They lived by the sword, fought as free men, and bent the knee to no one.By the time Kalnyshevsky rose through the ranks, people both feared and admired the Cossacks. They were known for their brutal raids against the Ottomans and their cunning ability to play empires against each other. But by the mid-18th century, the world was changing. The Russian Empire was expanding, and the Cossacks were caught in a dangerous game.Kalnyshevsky was a master of strategy, on and off the battlefield. In 1762, the people elected him Kosh Ataman, the leader of the Cossacks. Russian Empress Catherine removed him in 1763, but the people, undeterred, elected him against her wishes again in 1765. He ruled with a mix of toughness and diplomacy. Under his command, the Sich thrived. The Cossacks became essential allies to Russia in its wars against the Ottomans, and Kalnyshevsky hoped that by proving their loyalty, he could secure their independence.Catherine had other plans.The Night of BetrayalThe Cossacks failed to shape the battlefield in their favor. They relied on Russian alliances that betrayed them. They believed their contributions would secure their future.By 1774, Russian Empress Catherine the Great had secured a major victory against the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War. That same year, she signed the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, which gave Russia control over Crimea and expanded her empire’s reach. The Cossacks, once useful in the fight against the Ottomans, were now a liability.For years, Catherine had been dismantling Ukrainian autonomy. She had already crushed the Hetmanate, another independent Cossack structure, in the 1760s. The Zaporozhian Cossacks were next. She saw them as too independent, too unpredictable. Their lands were valuable. Their fighting spirit, too dangerous to be left unchecked. The empire could not allow a warrior state to exist within its borders.On the night of June 4th to 5th, 1775, without warning, General Pyotr Tekeli’s army surrounded the Zaporozhian Sich. Sixty thousand Russian soldiers against a few thousand Cossacks. There was no chance. Kalnyshevsky, then 85 years old, knew that fighting would mean slaughter. So he ordered his men to lay down their arms, hoping to negotiate, hoping to save what little remained.He was wrong. Catherine’s betrayal wasn’t just political. It was complete.That night, there was no bloodshed, but two months later, Russia finished the betrayal. On August 3, 1775, Catherine ordered the Sich to be destroyed and wiped off the map. The Russians tore down fortifications, looted homes, and desecrated churches. They seized Cossack records in an attempt to erase their history. Some Cossacks managed to escape to Ottoman-controlled lands. Others were forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. The Zaporozhian way of life, centuries old, was erased.And as for Kalnyshevsky, the empire couldn’t risk letting a legend roam free.Ten Years of DarknessIn July of 1776, the American Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence from Britain. The same month, the Russians arrested and exiled Kalnyshevsky. And not just any prison. Solovetsky Monastery. A frozen fortress in the White Sea, where political prisoners were sent to vanish.Then in 1792, the Russians put him in solitary confinement for ten years. His cell was three meters by three meters, a stone box with no windows, no books, and no human contact. Kalnyshevsky sat in the darkness. He went blind. The world outside changed, but he remained trapped, a relic of a lost nation.He was a warrior who had led thousands into battle, now left alone with nothing but his thoughts and prayers. And yet, he refused to break.The Russian empire expected him to die quickly, but the old Cossack endured.Years of isolation and deprivation robbed him of his vision but not his will. Even the monastery guards, hardened men who had seen many prisoners die in despair, came to admire him. He became known not as a broken old man but as a saint-like figure—silent, unshaken, and still carrying the pride of the Cossacks.In 1801, at the age of 110, Emperor Alexander I of Russia pardoned him. Alexander intended to present himself as a reformer. One of his early acts was to grant amnesty to several long-imprisoned political figures.But it was too late.There was nowhere left to go. The Sich was gone. The Cossacks had been scattered. Kalnyshevsky was an elderly blind man without a home, without a people. So he stayed at the monastery, living out his final two years in quiet solitude.When he died in 1803, he was buried in the cold northern soil, far from the land he had fought for.The Last CossackToday, we remember Petro Kalnyshevsky as a symbol of resistance. He refused to break in the face of an empire.Despite efforts in the 1990s to repatriate them, his remains were never relocated to Ukraine. His gravestone exists, but the exact location of his grave is lost; buried at Solovetsky Monastery in Russia. In 2008, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate canonized him as a saint, recognizing his enduring legacy.Today, the last Cossack still stands. A legend of defiance. A reminder that free people will always fight against Russian aggression.(Beat. Silence.)Curtain down.Scene TwoEnter Stage Right … the CapitalistsIt so happens that funding the fight of a free people against their Russian oppressors isn’t inexpensive. Some Americans think these resources should be a two-way street. If Ukraine wants American support, it needs to prioritize aligning its economic future with US interests. And that starts with a minerals deal.Some say our relationship shouldn’t be transactional. But Friday’s meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky made it clear that the White House isn’t treating support for Ukraine as a matter of ideological solidarity. The United States is making decisions based on interests. If Ukraine wants continued support, securing the mineral rights deal with American companies must be its top priority.Ukraine has a stronger hand than is apparent. America is desperate to counterbalance China’s monopoly in the rare earth element business, and getting rare earth elements from Greenland appears increasingly unlikely. From Ukraine’s perspective, this agreement is about survival. A stable Ukraine isn’t possible without economic security, but economic security depends on stability first. The US won’t invest in a war zone. To establish this stability, the minerals deal must include security guarantees, infrastructure commitments, and long-term stability.War is diplomacy combined with other means. Wars aren’t won only with kinetic weapons. We achieve national objectives with power, with influence, and with the right pressure in the right places. Money and resources are influence. If Ukraine wants American support, it must commit to an economic relationship that makes its survival an American interest. The minerals deal isn’t a side negotiation. It is the negotiation. Enter Stage Left … the Bleeding Heart LiberalsIt may seem unlikely that those who champion the struggle of the Ukrainian people would need to root for the capitalists, but here we are. We may lament the state of the world, but that doesn’t mean we can change it.This is not a new phenomenon. The term “bleeding heart liberal” first appeared in 1938, mocking those pushing for an anti-lynching bill. The bill failed. Lynchings continued. The US didn’t officially make lynching a federal hate crime until 2022—84 years later.History reminds us that moral clarity doesn’t guarantee action. Righteous causes are every day delayed, diluted, or outright denied. And when they are, people suffer. Ukraine can’t afford to wait 84 years for the world to catch up.Despite its lack of grace and decorum, the term never quite disappeared. Last week, Elon Musk took aim on X, commenting:"Every bleeding-heart liberal I talk to about the Russia-Ukraine war wants to keep feeding bodies into the meat grinder forever….They have no plan for success."It’s easy to mock those who care, but caring without strategy prolongs suffering. If Ukraine is to win, security can’t be a moral stance. It must be a vital American interest, which means money, power, and leverage.No one wants more bodies in the meat grinder. Passive support in the form of moral backing, speeches, and aid packages that sustain but don’t resolve the conflict isn’t enough. We need decisive action. That means changing the conditions of the war in a way that forces Russia to back down, not just keeping Ukraine in the fight. We need to turn Ukraine’s security into a US interest through the minerals deal and economic integration. Moral conviction won’t stop Russian aggression. Enter Center Stage … The PragmatistsThe capitalists see opportunity. The bleeding hearts see morality. And the pragmatists see reality. They see that security, economics, and influence are all tied together. If we are to achieve a successful outcome, we have to stop reacting and start shaping the battlefield.Russia is not a friend to the American people. It sponsors violent extremism across Africa and the Middle East, fueling the same instability that leads to deadly attacks on American soil—including the worst in our history, twenty-four years ago. This threat goes beyond terror networks. Russia actively undermines US alliances and disrupts international stability, making the world more dangerous and unpredictable. The stronger Russia’s grip on Ukraine, the more emboldened it becomes elsewhere.Russia has no real incentive to negotiate in good faith because it believes it can outlast Ukraine and Western support. They assume political divisions, shifting US priorities, and battlefield attrition will eventually work in their favor. They will drag out the conflict, knowing that American attention is fleeting. They will use the battlefield as their primary negotiating tool, showing little regard for the lives of their own soldiers, let alone Ukraine’s.Instead of waiting for Russia to decide when it’s willing to talk, the US and our allies need to shape the conditions under which Russia has no good choices.NATO needs to apply pressure to key pieces of vulnerable Russian geography, such as Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a tiny piece of Russia, separated from the main Russian landmass. Even stopping and searching shipping vehicles entering or leaving Kaliningrad sends a message. No blockade, but disruption. It’s not an act of war, but it brings traffic to a standstill. And that means we can blockade Kaliningrad whenever we want.Stopping and searching traffic in and out of Kaliningrad is a message. A warning shot without an empty casing. If Russia escalates or drags their feet in Ukraine, NATO can escalate in Kaliningrad. Russia knows this. Kaliningrad on the table changes the calculus for Russia. Every second they delay in Ukraine, we can squeeze them in Kaliningrad. We need to strengthen our negotiating position. We can’t just ask Russia nicely. Strength is the only thing Putin understands. But leverage isn’t just about more weapons or more aid—it’s about shaping the conditions of the war. We need to make the cost of Russia staying in Ukraine higher than the cost of leaving. And that starts with Kaliningrad.Russia is a threat to the American people, and we need leverage to negate that threat.In SumKalnyshevsky fought well. He resisted. He endured. But he lost. Not because he wasn’t strong enough. Not because the Cossacks lacked courage. They failed to shape the battlefield in their favor and were betrayed by their Russian allies. Ukraine cannot afford to make the same mistake.The American capitalists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the capitalists. The world doesn’t operate on sentimentality. Ukraine must commit to an economic future tied to American interests. Securing a rare earth minerals deal is its survival strategy. The minerals deal isn’t a side negotiation; it is the negotiation.The compassionate need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the compassionate. A tragic reality is that history is full of righteous causes that fail. Support for Ukraine must be more than a moral conviction; it must be a vital US interest.The pragmatists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the pragmatists.We need to shape the battlefield. Russia threatens the American people, and we need leverage. Kaliningrad is that leverage.Free people will always resist Russian aggression. Will America stand with them?May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  18:00
• How do we bring manufacturing back to America?

  A quick note before we dive in. This week, “I Believe” officially hit the numbers to rank as a Top 10% global podcast for all of 2025. Of course, it’s still February, and we have plenty of room to grow. I just want to take a moment to say thanks for listening!…How do we bring manufacturing back to America?🎙️ Tariffs Built American IndustryIn the early 1800s, the United States was still an economic underdog. We had won our independence from Britain, but economically we were far from independent.Across the Atlantic, the Industrial Revolution was transforming British manufacturing. British factories had decades of experience in mass production. They churned out cheap, high-quality goods. Meanwhile, US manufacturing was small, scattered, and struggling to compete.America’s economy revolved around agriculture. Cotton. Tobacco. Wheat. We relied heavily on European imports for manufactured goods. British industries dominated global trade, producing textiles and iron at such low costs that American businesses couldn’t compete.That left us with a major vulnerability: We were too dependent on foreign goods. Without a strong domestic manufacturing base, America had little economic control over its own future.James Madison & The Road to WarIn 1808, America elected James Madison as the fourth President of the United States. Tensions with Britain were boiling over.For years, British naval forces harassed American ships, seized cargo, and forced American sailors into their navy, a practice known as impressment. As an international insult, the British stirred unrest in the Northwest Territory, backing Native American resistance against US expansion.By 1812, America had had enough. On June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Great Britain.The War of 1812: A Mixed OutcomeMilitarily, the War of 1812 was a mess. The US attempted to invade Canada, which … didn’t go well. We did capture York, which is modern-day Toronto, and burned public buildings, but the British retaliated in full force. They marched into Washington, D.C. and burned the White House and the Capitol.But here’s where things get interesting economically.British naval blockades cut off trade. Those cheap British imports we had relied on were gone.American businesses had no choice but to step up. Factories that might have otherwise struggled suddenly had a captive market. We had to produce goods for ourselves, and for the first time, we saw what an independent American industry could look like.The Aftermath & Economic CrisisIn December 1814, the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent. Neither side gained or lost territory. Militarily, it was a stalemate.Symbolically, it was a turning point. The US had stood up to Britain and survived. National pride soared. The war cemented America’s identity as a sovereign power.While the fighting stopped, Britain wasn’t done economically. Almost immediately, British manufacturers flooded American ports with cheap goods, undercutting US businesses and threatening to wipe out our industrial progress overnight.Congress had newfound confidence and a choice. We could let American industry collapse, or step in to protect it.The Tariff of 1816: America’s First Protective TariffIn 1816, Congress gained consensus and passed the first major protective tariff in US history. Even the Senate’s most prominent conservative states’ rights advocate, John C. Calhoun (South Carolina), publically advocated for it. The Tariff of 1816 imposed a 20 to 30% tax on imported goods, particularly textiles, iron, and leather products. Our goal was to make British goods more expensive and give American manufacturers a chance to compete.And it worked. Textile mills in New England flourished. Lowell, Massachusetts, became a booming industrial hub. Iron production surged in Pennsylvania, fueling railroads, construction, and manufacturing.Infrastructure projects expanded as a growing economy demanded better roads and canals.This was America’s manufacturing turning point. It was the moment we moved from a country dependent on foreign goods to one that could build its own industrial future.The Tariff Debate: North vs. SouthNow, not everyone was on board.Southern cotton planters feared retaliation. They worried that if Britain had to pay more for American goods, they’d buy less American cotton in return. Higher tariffs, to them, meant less trade and lower profits.This tariff debate, whether to protect US industries or keep trade open and cheap, would continue for decades. It fueled sectional tensions between the industrial North and the agrarian South.Despite the controversy, the US took its first major step toward economic independence.Instead of relying on Europe, we were finally building an economy of our own.It’s easy to come to the simple conclusion that tariffs protected American industry. You could say, “Our success all started with tariffs!” But that would be a shortsided conclusion. The decisive element that protected and grew American industry was consensus.Tariffs TodayThe Wall Street Journal last week reported President Trump is considering tariffs “in the neighborhood of 25%” on automobiles, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical products. He suggested these tariffs could increase over time. There’s been a lot of discussion lately about tariffs, so that wasn’t so compelling.President Trump suggested that US companies could be given a phase-in period on the items they import. This period could give businesses time to move production back to the US. He even said he’d allow “a little bit of a chance” for companies to re-shore before ramping up the tariffs. He didn’t offer details, but the logic behind giving industry time to come home before tightening the screws is what makes this policy intriguing. He billed it as a different kind of protectionism.In the early 1800s, Congress passed protectionist tariffs to protect American manufacturing from British manufacturing. But American manufacturing was already here. It just needed a kickstart.Today, we face a different challenge. We don’t need to protect industry. We need to rebuild it.Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America began exporting its manufacturing jobs overseas. Jack Welch and General Electric were at the forefront, pushing for offshoring to boost profits. Other companies followed, chasing cheaper labor and higher margins. Bit by bit, America willingly chose to dismantle our own industrial base. Washington stood by and watched as we destroyed our national capability for a quick buck.As an example, that was our moment to save American steel. Had we implemented protective tariffs in the 1960s and 1970s, some of those jobs and, more importantly, that capability might have stayed here.So … the protectionist tariffs President Trump is considering might not just be about protecting our industry from foreign competition.They might be about protecting us from ourselves.And the logic behind that is fascinating.But again, let’s remember that the decisive element that protects and grows American industry is not tariffs. It’s consensus. There’s a key difference between the Tariff of 1816 and today.James Madison and the Tariff of 1816: The Evolution of a Founding FatherJames Madison wasn’t just a president. He was the architect of America.Few figures in American history shaped the nation as profoundly as he did. Before he ever set foot in the White House, he had already built the American framework.He was the Father of the Constitution. He meticulously crafted the structure of the US government. When the new republic teetered on the edge of collapse under the weak Articles of Confederation, it was Madison who designed a stronger system that balanced power between the federal government and the states. He sought stability without tyranny.He didn’t just write the Constitution. He defended it. Alongside Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, Madison co-wrote The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that convinced the states to ratify the Constitution. Without him, there might not have been a Constitution at all.When critics of the Constitution demanded protections for individual liberties, Madison delivered. He authored the Bill of Rights, enshrining free speech, religious freedom, and due process into law.He designed the system. He fought for its ratification. And then, he spent the rest of his career making it work.From Congressman to Secretary of StateMadison served as a congressman from Virginia, playing a crucial role in shaping early American policy. He was one of Thomas Jefferson’s closest allies, standing at the center of nearly every major political battle of the era.He opposed Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government and a national bank, fearing that these would concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government. He fought for states’ rights.He fought against policies that favored wealthy elites over working-class citizens.In 1801, he became Secretary of State under Jefferson. There, Madison oversaw The Louisiana Purchase, one of the most important events in US history. Jefferson saw an opportunity to double the size of the country. Madison handled the negotiations. He drafted the plan and authorized James Monroe to offer a price starting at ten million dollars for the land. In total, four cents per acre. The deal secured vast new lands, opened up the frontier for westward expansion, and strengthened the nation’s position on the world stage.For eight years, Madison handled foreign affairs. He navigated tensions with Britain and France as the US struggled to maintain neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. By the time he took office as president in 1809, conflict with Britain had become unavoidable.Quite a list of accomplishments. The nation forever owes a debt to James Madison.Because he literally wrote the document to govern America, he knew he needed consensus to make America great.Madison and TariffsJames Madison was a champion of divided power, states’ rights, and the right of the people over tyranny.He wrote the document that explicitly gave Congress, not the President, the authority to impose tariffs. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, placed that power in the hands of the legislature.And because he wrote it, Madison knew he could not simply order a tariff into existence. He needed national consensus to prompt Congress to act. A president acting alone creates no legacy, and certainly not a legacy like Madison’s. A policy dictated by one man is erased by the next administration. A policy built through Congress, through debate, and through broad support is the decisive effect that endures.By 1815, Madison publicly acknowledged that the United States needed a strong manufacturing base to avoid dependence on Britain. In his Seventh Annual Message to Congress, he explicitly called for tariffs to protect American industry, marking a major shift in his thinking.Madison understood the stakes. America had the natural resources, the labor force, and the potential to be an industrial power, but manufacturing would not develop on its own. He argued that certain industries, particularly those tied to national defense and essential goods, were too important to be left at the mercy of foreign competition.He knew that without government support, industry could take decades to grow. Without broad, lasting consensus, it would not grow at all. A policy that shifts every four years did not support American industry.Madison’s public support signaled a major shift in Republican thinking. His endorsement reassured moderates, convincing those who had once resisted federal economic intervention.If the Father of the Constitution, the guardian of states’ rights, and the protector of the people’s liberty believed it was in America’s best interest to protect its industry, who would dare question the brilliant President James Madison?Back to TodayThe lesson of 1816 is clear. America owes allegiance to no king. Executive orders are fleeting.Madison worked to build consensus, spurring Congress to action. It was not Madison alone who reshaped America’s economic future. The long-term success of American industry does not rest on executive orders or short-term tariff hikes. Just like in 1816, it rests with Congress.We must deliberate, gain consensus, and pass tariffs that protect American industry, especially our defense capability and goods essential to running American society. We need to make these goods internally and defend ourselves from coercion from other countries.May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  15:14
• Should America give our surplus grain away every year?

  Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?This week, the nation’s Food for Peace Program—and all other United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs—found themselves on the chopping block.Before we go any further, let’s get on the same page.American agriculture is national security.Second, let’s share some quick history.On July 10, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, allowing the president to ship surplus commodities to “friendly” nations on concessional or grant terms. For the first time, America could give away its excess grain to partner nations.In 1961, President John F. Kennedy expanded the program, rebranded it Food for Peace, and established USAID to oversee it.If you believe that those with plenty should help those with nothing, Food for Peace was a success. It became the largest single food donor to the United Nations World Food Programme. In 2022 alone, “American farmers provided more than 4 billion pounds of U.S.-grown grains, soybeans, lentils, rice, and other commodity staples” through the program.It’s also good business for American farmers. Now, Republican lawmakers from agricultural states are fighting to save it.Every government program should face scrutiny. But this one is worth saving.This isn’t about charity. That was a benefit of the program. But Food for Peace wasn’t only about poverty. It was about national security.Global hunger breeds instability.Instability creates openings for adversaries.Adversary influence threatens the American people.So the real question isn’t whether America should shut down an agency that some see as a global social program driven by ideology.We need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Forget charity for a second. Let’s take the question at face value.Should America give our surplus grain away every year?Food Security is National SecurityA country that cannot feed itself becomes a victim of coercion and geopolitical manipulation.By the late 1930s, Japan relied heavily on imports for most of its food and nearly all of its oil, rubber, and metals. Japan’s domestic agriculture couldn’t keep up with its growing population, and they started seizing food from their neighbors. Between 1936 and 1938, 95% of Japan’s imported rice came from Korea or Taiwan (Johnston, B. F. (1953). Japanese Food Management in World War II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 45–49, 166–170, 202–204).Food shortages forced Japan to expand. As its military campaign in China escalated, the US and other Western powers imposed economic sanctions.Japan’s food problem became catastrophic during World War II. Imports were disrupted, military priorities came first, and by 1940, Japan rationed food. Malnutrition, disease, and starvation followed. Beriberi, a disease caused by vitamin B1 deficiency, spiked.Hunger was a key factor in Japan’s surrender. By 1945, US naval blockades and bombing campaigns had destroyed Japan’s food supply chains. America targeted Japan’s food vulnerability as a center of gravity in our strategic approach. Even if the war had continued, famine would have crippled Japan’s ability to fight. After the war, food shortages persisted into the US occupation.This suffering changed Japan’s long-term policies. The country fortified domestic agriculture and imposed high tariffs on imported grains like rice, wheat, and barley. Even today, Japan strictly controls grain imports, avoiding overdependence on foreign suppliers, including the US.The lesson is clear. Food security is national security. It is not just about feeding people. It is sovereignty, stability, and strength.Japan wasn’t the only nation that learned this the hard way.Let’s talk about another fallen American adversary: the Soviet Union.Khrushchev and Yeltsin Go to the Grocery Store!On Monday, September 21, 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev went to the grocery store. Not in Moscow. Not in Leningrad. In San Francisco, California.He walked through aisles of produce, deli meats, and frozen dinners—foods unimaginable in the Soviet Union. The next day, in Des Moines, Iowa, he ate his first American hot dog and joked:“We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.”But in 1959, Khrushchev never publicly admitted shock at America’s grocery stores. That would come later.By the 1980s, Soviet agriculture had collapsed under central planning. Shortages and rationing became commonplace.Then, in 1989, just two months before the Berlin Wall fell, Boris Yeltsin visited a grocery store in Houston, Texas. Unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin couldn’t hide his reaction. The Houston Chronicle described how he roamed the aisles of Randall’s, shaking his head in amazement.Yeltsin had grown up hungry. The Soviet State had taken away his family’s farm, leaving them dependent on a system that couldn’t feed its own people.That grocery store visit shattered any belief in communism. Two years later, as Russian President, Yeltsin ordered Russian state land to be divided into private family farms.From the defeat of Japan to the fall of the Soviet Union, our lesson is that:American Agriculture is National SecurityFood isn’t just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence.Japanese agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.Soviet Russian agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.And today, we still need agricultural abundance.Agricultural AbundanceAmerica’s agricultural dominance isn’t an accident. It’s a deliberate national choice. It’s built on policy, infrastructure, and continuous innovation. Both necessity and profit drive this system.On February 13, President Trump reinforced this priority, signing an Executive Order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission. One of its key tasks is to “Work with farmers to ensure that U.S. food is healthy, abundant, and affordable.”The focus on abundance is critical. Food security isn’t just about today. It’s long-term stability.A nation that produces only ‘just enough’ food is one disaster away from crisis. That’s why the national agriculture system cannot be designed for maximum profit alone. There has to be excess. The system must be resilient.Food production isn’t instant. Crops and livestock take time, land, and weather cooperation. For example, with the recent egg shortages, if producers could ramp up supply overnight to chase profits, they would. But you can’t create egg layers out of thin air.This is why food security requires intentional overproduction.Without surplus, a drought, flood, or disease outbreak can cripple the food supply. Unlike other industries, agriculture can’t instantly scale production to meet demand. Efficiency alone isn’t the right measure. Resilience is the right measure for agriculture. A strong system produces more than necessary because shortages are more dangerous than excess.The resulting surplus shields against uncertainty. It stabilizes the food supply, prevents reliance on foreign imports, and protects against market disruptions. On the world stage, a nation that produces more food than it consumes has leverage. Countries that depend on imports are vulnerable to foreign control. When America has a surplus, adversaries can’t weaponize food against us.In this way, surplus grain isn’t waste. Surplus grain is a strategic asset.There’s another key factor at play.Agriculture is UnpredictableFarmers don’t control the weather, bird flu outbreaks, or global trade policies. One in three years is a bad year for agriculture. A system that only produces ‘just enough’ in a good year guarantees shortages in a bad year.The only way to secure the nation’s food supply is to grow more than needed every year.When one region suffers from drought, another’s surplus offsets the losses. When unpredictable events disrupt production, a buffer ensures food remains affordable and accessible. Surplus keeps Americans fed, prices stable, and the country resilient.Because our agricultural system must be designed this way, we always have more grain than we need. Even though we need surplus every year, we also need to manage it wisely. Uncontrolled surplus drives prices down, hurting American farmers. If we don’t address the grain surplus, we risk losing the ability to grow it.We also need to think about American influence on the world stage.Agricultural Surplus and InfluenceWithout order, scarcity leads to conflict. Nations compete for limited resources. The strong dominate, and the weak suffer. In a world where food shortages create instability, countries that control the global food supply exert power over those that do not.This is why agricultural abundance is more than an economic advantage. It is a tool of influence. Nations with surplus can stabilize their allies, undermine their adversaries, and dictate the terms of trade. Japan and the Soviet Union failed because they could not secure their own food supply. America’s agricultural surplus allowed it to feed its friends and keep its enemies dependent.But surplus alone is not enough. It must be managed strategically. An uncontrolled surplus collapses domestic markets, driving prices so low that farmers go bankrupt. A controlled surplus allows America to direct influence where it matters.Food is both a commodity and a diplomatic asset. Throughout history, America has used surplus grain as a foundation for long-term partnerships. Food aid programs have strengthened alliances, opened trade routes, and cemented US influence in key regions. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and ensured that newly rebuilt economies were tied to American markets. The Food for Peace program fed the hungry while reinforcing US influence in developing nations. It aligned economic structures with American interests rather than Soviet alternatives.Partnerships built on food endure. A nation that depends on America for food security is far less likely to align with adversaries. A reliable food supplier is a stabilizing force in times of crisis. Strategic agricultural surplus is not just about helping others. Our agricultural surplus secures America’s position in the world.We need to extend our influence and maintain strong partnerships to achieve our global security goals. And to do that, we need surplus grain.Which brings us to our question. Should America give our surplus grain away every year? Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?American agriculture is national security.Food is not just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence. On the world stage, America has interests, and we have partners. Reliability and trustworthiness are both virtues and strategic advantages.Surplus grain is not waste. It is a strategic asset that we need to use wisely. The question is not whether we should give grain away. The real question is how we should use it to advance American interests.If you believe that those with plenty, like America, have a duty to help those with nothing, then Food for Peace was a success. But food aid is not charity. It is good business for American farmers and a powerful tool of influence.Food aid programs do more than just feed people. They strengthen alliances. They open trade routes. They cement US influence. They align global economic structures with American interests rather than those of our adversaries.We might choose not to send our surplus grain through the United Nations World Food Programme. We might prefer more direct control over where we exert influence.But we must choose to use American agriculture to reinforce partnerships, secure influence, and protect our global standing.May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  14:12

Weitere Gesellschaft und Kultur Podcasts

Trending Gesellschaft und Kultur Podcasts

Über I Believe