WHY AI WILL NOT HARM HUMANITY, BUT SERVE AND UPLIFT

Most people do not realize that much of what they consume as “news” is actually initiated by someone, somewhere with an agenda. (The media never tell you this because they are complicit). We have a current widely circulated instance of this, with AI being treated as a threat that could wipe out the human race, generated by dubious  “whistleblowers” previously (and briefly) employed by tech firms. Some have been associated with anti-AI groups, and Chinese puppets seeking to retard America’s lead in this field. They have now been joined by executives of the leading AI companies publicly worrying about how potentially harmful their product could be. They even provide percentage projections of how likely human extinction will be, while altruistically calling for regulation of this “danger” they themselves have created. 

This is highly suspect for at least two reasons. First, the call for regulation by the leading players in a field is usually predicated on using the government to  seal  their dominant positions off from competition from upstart firms, giving them cartel-like power. Second, they also happen to have inflated IPOs coming up that they want to maximize the value of, thus serving their own interests rather than the public interest. 

All of this fear-mongering finds a credulous audience among paranoid people who have taken sci-fi too literally, while also worrying people who are more grounded. The fear centers on AI surpassing human intelligence and control, to develop itself autonomously, and then eliminate humans. Never mind that no one has bothered to explain just why AI would want to wipe out humanity when its development is designed to serve humanity. The latter is a more plausible scenario, as depicted back in 1970 by a movie called The Forbin Project, where an advanced central computer links with its Soviet counterpart to take control of war powers due to the way humans have messed everything up. The computer will then run things for the benefit of humans without all the rancor and conflict. Some people may even find this appealing.

Lost in this is the fact that even if AI exceeds human intelligence it is not the end-all that is suggested, because human beings have many other modes of perception and understanding that AI will never have. It is like saying that someone with a high IQ has it over everyone else in everything, when in fact it is limited to raw intelligence, which could be accompanied by limitations in other modes of thinking and perception or reflected in matters like social interaction. 

But AI is a tool for humans, that can improve life in a myriad of ways, such as medicine and health, finding cures for cancer and other potentially fatal diseases, as well as rare diseases that affect fewer people and thus don’t get much attention. It will be able to do these things at a much faster pace, drastically reducing all the years of trial and error experimentation and testing. It will do the same in many other areas, guided by humans, and that is really the crux of it. 

The real problem is what can be used for good can also be used for evil, but that is true of so many things in life. You don’t need AI to generate bioterrorism. The capability is already there, along with most other perceived threats. So the problem is really bad actors using the technology for nefarious purposes.  To mitigate that, and any potential threat from hostile external forces and criminals, AI must be used to develop countermeasures and shields to maintain security, and even proactively counter any possible threat. 

 Importantly, there will not be some monolithic central AI, but rather a myriad of AIs operating at the individual level, emanating from a number of different sources. It will be widespread and diverse. That means that federal regulation, international agreements, monitors, oversight committees, etc. that so far have been proposed won't accomplish anything beyond impeding progress. Again the real problem is not inherently AI, but rather what people will do with it. As  result they fail to address the specific segment that could actually prevent harm.

 For the less likely rogue AI, or misuse of it, we already have the outlines of a solution for resolving the most feared outcomes. Isaac Asimov thought and wrote a great deal about robots, and decades ago came up with a set of Laws of Robotics that would be ingrained in the machines so as to prevent any kind of harmful action. The same idea can be applied to AI. This would involve implanting some fundamental restraints at the program or machine code level, or even within the circuits themselves. With proper consideration this would then be virtually impossible to circumvent. 

Then the question is just what should be included in this essentially moral sense for AI. It is the moral sense that guides and restrains our own behavior, and something comparable could be created for AI. This could be developed by an entity drawn from people from a broad spectrum of fields such as moral guidance/ethics/religion, law, program development, math/probability experts, philosophers, circuit designers, scientists, etc. Such an undertaking ought to be able to come up with an ironclad set of inviolable principles, restraints, and guides embedded in AI that would prevent anything harmful. Furthermore, any violation would automatically invoke an unalterable kill switch. Ideally this would all be embedded in any source that is capable of producing AI. 

Thus, AI is not a threat, but rather something that will uplift and enrich humanity. It will be ubiquitous and as commonplace as cell phones, and will be an integrated, routine, and normal, part of life. At some point, we may, in some sense, even merge with it on our own terms. But that’s another story. 

REFLECTIONS ON 9/11 AND FOREVER WAR

September 11, 2001 is different from almost any other day in our history, such as Pearl Harbor, for unique reasons:

Memory

This date, this experience, has not diminished as much as other things. It is true that many born after that date have no direct knowledge of it, but consider this. For those of us who grew up in the 1950s and 1960s World War II already seemed like something in the distant past, in a kind of black and white world that seemed to be more connected to the times before it than the world after it.

But WWII was then only ten to fifteen years in the past. Contrast that with 9/11, which is now 25 years in the past, yet still seems as vivid as ever. It is true that younger people don’t know it directly, but then most of the rest of the country didn’t know it directly either. What they saw was what anyone can still see to this day on television. Today at least one network broadcast minute by minute coverage they had provided as it happened, and it still seemed fresh.

Continuity and Change

Many things have changed since then, especially in terms of security precautions. Certainly the world changed. Just think of the world that shortly preceded it, the time of the millennium. We watched celebrations around the world that came off without a hitch, infused with an optimism that has since sadly diminished.

On the other hand other things have not changed and still remain with us. If you look at pictures and films on that day, especially just before the event, things look remarkably the same, to the point where you can’t tell the difference without close examination, apart from the subsequent tragedy of Ground Zero. (I used to spend a lot of time there and it took many years before I could stomach going back). The image, the memory, is as vivid as ever for many of us, and still should be for others by simply watching the events unfold- the destruction and collapse of the buildings, the horror of victims jumping to their deaths, the reactions of people on the ground, and the many acts of heroism and sacrifice on the part of the first responders. Since the landscape and the people appear essentially as they do today, even if you weren’t around at the time it still resonates. It still feels contemporary.

Forever War

That’s because it is, and so it must remain until the threat is eliminated. Whether we like it or not, approve or disapprove, the same hatred, motivation, and actions persist against entire western world. Unfortunately we have some self-deluded individuals who share those emotions and have managed to attain disproportionate influence, particularly as magnified through social media. We cannot wish it away, suggest we are to blame, pretend that it doesn’t exist, or attribute it to a particular group of people Wishful thinking cannot change the fundamental reality; there are still many people in the world who want to kill us, destroy our civilization, and eliminate us. The real “Forever War” is the one directed against us.

The West has done nothing to deserve this despite excuses conjured up about colonialism, imperialism, etc., because without those things they would still dream of wiping us out. For radical Islamists we are infidels, who must be converted or eliminated. They still want us dead.

Where We Are Now

Now consider how crazy this confrontation is. We have immensely greater power, wealth, military prowess, and technology, even as some of the latter has been passed on to them by scurrilous actors, the same way our aviation technology was used against us. They are molehills alongside a mountain, yet they still come across as more resilient than us. Despite all our advantages they appear to have an edge. How is this possible?

We cannot ignore the fact that our enemies across the board have managed to demoralize us with the assistance of fellow travelers or useful idiots, despite our supposedly advanced communications capability. An artificial mindset has captured many people, who are abysmally ignorant of our capabilities, interests, and virtues. Others simply want to be left alone and not be drawn into conflict. The problem is that other people simply will not leave us alone. There is no way to avoid that reality, even if you are one of those who thinks we are at fault and/or that we brought this upon ourselves.

This is simply not going to go away as long as we allow it to fester. That means we must become proactive and prepare to eliminate the threat using all means at our disposal. We must undermine them, disillusion them, and otherwise destroy them. Unfortunately we have seriously bungled the strategy, due to major mistakes like Iraq, and the unnecessary disorganized, disgraceful exit from Afghanistan, which have disillusioned and demoralized a large segment of the public. So there is considerable sentiment, perhaps justifiably, against “forever wars,” or even foreign wars in general.

Unfortunately this misses the bigger picture, which is the real Forever War against the West. It Is in keeping with centuries of Islamic aggression and expansion, that only temporarily ended as the West pulled ahead commercially and technologically. But as we have seen in the horror of 9/11, they can now use things we created against us.

Muslims

However I want to be clear as to who we are talking about. It is not the Islamic world, but a segment of radical Islamic fundamentalists and their worldview. Most of the rest are simply human beings like all of us, with all the same life challenges. We have to distinguish between the real enemy and the rest.

Here is the truth about Muslims in America. Before 9/11 the Muslim population here consisted largely of educated professionals, i.e. doctors, etc. For decades they were a fairly conservative group. The problem today is that 80% of the Muslims in America only arrived after 9/11. They came in huge numbers due to lax immigration enforcement, and they were from a much lower population segment than our established Muslim population. Unlike the existing American Muslim community, who followed the same path as many other immigrant groups, many of these people have no loyalty to, or affinity with, the United States and are far less likely to assimilate, and much more likely to be on the dole, leaving us with a festering problem. The result is already apparent in places like New York City and Minnesota. We simply can no longer afford to admit people in this country who are unlikely to assimilate, have no visible means of support, and little appreciation of the American way of life. We can no longer circumscribe the vast majority of people in order to avoid offending such people. We are not the ones who need to change; they are.

What must be done

So how should we proceed against the Forever War waged against us? In the current conflict there is a simple problem. The Iranian fanatics intend to get a nuclear weapon unless we stop them. If they do, these true believers will not hesitate to use it. Even if you detest the man, the Trump administration has shown the way, unlike past bungling. You would never know this from the hostile media, but from a more detached standpoint the strategy has been brilliant. Casualties have been very low, at a level that is often reflected in military accidents.

The only real mistake so far was not laying out the strategy at the beginning and making the case for the ensuing actions. Otherwise the successful destruction of much of the regime has been impressive, eliminating much of their military capabilities, including their entire Navy and Air Force. The fanatics will not give up easily, but the administration has again applied a smart strategy of destroying them financially, to the point where they cannot pay their troops, or eventually continue to repress their increasingly restive population.

So far this engagement has been executed successfully, and has nothing in common with past failures. We have learned from our mistakes. Now we must see it through until the regime is gone, once and for all, and anything short of that will be disastrous and self-defeating.

Then we must pursue the still very active terrorists. Why are they able to use the Internet to recruit and brainwash people? Surely we could disrupt this, override, and even knock it out. We must further disrupt them physically, for to the extent they are committed to attacking us we must get them first. This does not require a major military effort, but a war in the shadows conducted by a few expertly trained people.

Finally we must address the abysmal ignorance of so many people regarding our history and civilization, and the warped understanding that so many have absorbed. Our enemies have already managed to demoralize, or at the very least exhaust many people through their Forever War, in a country that was once singular in its buoyant optimism.

We must remain true to the memory of all those who perished on 9/11 and remain vigilant so that their deaths not be in vain. It could have been, and still could be you or your loved ones. We must overcome our attention deficit that demands short term solutions to long term problems. All those innocents who died that day are nothing less than modern martyrs for our way of life. In that spirit let us live our lives in a way that does justice to what was denied them.

INTERNET ADDICTION?

It is not necessary to have any sympathy for Zuckerberg to recognize how spurious the attempt, by a number of states, to sue Meta for virtually its entire market value is, for allegedly hooking young people on sites like Facebook. Never mind that if you mention it to any young people they will tell you that “Facebook is for old people.” This is a transparent attempt by politicians and lawyers to legally steal someone else’s resources, in a way that will primarily benefit themselves. This is based on the flawed notion that Meta has effectively hooked children on their site. This is wrong, and I’m going to tell you why. 

Assume for a minute that Meta didn’t exist. People, including the young, would still flock to something else, like Tik-Tok,  with the same results. That they may have taken some steps to maintain the attention of their customer  is hardly sinister or illegal. The thing is that getting people to keep scrolling is not restricted to a few companies; it is in fact characteristic of the whole internet. Yet it would be absurd to attribute this to some evil cabal when it is in fact people doing it themselves. 

Every site wants attention from more people and will try to maintain and expand its audience. I’ve yet to watch a Podcast (apart from something on YouTube), but increasing numbers of people are watching them, and the more outrageous and sensational a program is the more likely it is to attract viewers. It is just another conscious method on the part of providers to attract an audience. The reality is that social media, and the entire web, are driven in the same way. Are we now going to assign the government the task of controlling marketing? 

The truth is that the entire Internet is what hooks people of all ages. This is clearly obvious when you see people universally and constantly engaged with their screens. It’s not just social media sites; it’s everything. Take email. What about all the scrolling through that? Yet no one was deliberately compelled to this behavior, and that is true of almost any way the Worldwide Web is utilized. 

We have a problem, but it is hardly restricted to a couple of social media sites, or young people in particular. It is everyone, everywhere all the time, and it has serious consequences for other aspects of life that are more important, based upon the time wasted and deviation from purpose. The only way to mitigate this is for people to wake up to what they are doing and exert some self-control over how their time is being used. 

As far as children go it is primarily the responsibility of parents to address this, not someone else, and certainly not the state, notwithstanding “democratic socialist” impulses. Focusing on children obscures the problem. Of course some of it may be harmful to them, but such things as social pressure would be there regardless, whether handwritten or electronic. Anyone who has gone through high school over the last hundred years can understand this. 

What is warped and missing here is that this is a universal phenomenon, affecting people of all ages. Nor is it the Internet to blame, which after all, is just a neutral conveyor of information. It is us. It is our behavior overall. But it  didn’t have to be this way. I recall in the early days of public use in the 1990s, initially using plain old modems, and then the old Compuserve, where your identity was just a number, and you were charged for your usage by the hour or minute. (If that were still the case you would not see such a widespread waste of time, given the cost). 

Back then the prospects were wonderful. You could research and access information everywhere, saving countless hours of contacting multiple institutions, and I and others still primarily use it that way. It was a living encyclopedia. As a result, universities and research institutes were the first online. That was unfortunately followed by pornography, which seems to attach itself to anything new, going back to videotapes. No one anticipated social media then, until it sprung out of coarser use as the Worldwide Web unfolded and everyone came on board. Once it essentially became free, usage exploded. 

Thus the Internet itself and all the players in it are not to blame for where we are. It is how we have come to be engaged with it, which is to say our behavior. That is the real problem we face, and it is up to us to change.  

TIMES OF TROUBLE, TIMES OF HOPE

The successful Artemis moon venture, after so many dormant decades, brings back memories of the very first flight around the moon by Borman, Lovell, and Anders aboard Apollo 8. I remember being glued to the TV around the clock as continuous coverage brought us what was probably the most seminal moment in space flight. Witnessing it was an unforgettable, thrilling experience. 

It was the very first human flight beyond earth orbit. It was the first manned Saturn 5 launch. They were the first humans to see the dark side of the moon, and the first live television broadcast from above the moon. It proved the feasibility of lunar travel and set the stage for Apollo 11 landing on the surface half a year later. 

It all happened towards the end of 1968, the worst year in our modern history. It was a time of continuous strife and division; worse than that in our own time, which in many ways originated back then. It was a marvelous, inspirational coda to that terrible year. They witnessed something no other human had ever seen before- the earth rising in the distance over the surface of the moon (the picture above was taken at the time). After orbiting the moon, on Christmas Eve Commander Frank Borman, and then the other crew members began reading from the Book of Genesis during a live broadcast to the whole world. It was one of the most powerful moments in human history. They triumphantly returned to earth a few days later, having completed a flawless mission.

It was a year of enthusiastically watching 2001:A Space Odyssey in a Cinerama theater presentation, and the first Star Trek episodes on TV. It seemed as though the Space Age had truly arrived. But sadly, by the early 1970s the last moon missions were completed and things tapered off. One of the biggest disappointments in my lifetime was the passage of more than fifty years before anyone again ventured to the moon. 

But now at last we have the successful mission of Artemis II to once again inspire us, and this time it will not stop, as we embark on a new age of human space exploration and settlement. Once again in troubled times there is reason for hope as the momentum increases and a space-faring future lies before us. 

NEW YORK ON THE PRECIPICE

 New York has been declining for decades, hemorrhaging people and businesses, largely due to gross mismanagement by elected officials. But that will be accelerated many times over if Zorhan Mamdani becomes mayor. 

Who is Mamdani? He is the son of radical parents who own a guarded luxury villa in Uganda. His father believes that Lincoln was equivalent to Hitler, yet he has a professorship spewing garbage to students. As for Zorhan, he has never seriously worked or supervised more than a handful of people, he has never run anything, yet he is poised to take over the financial capitol of the world. He is more than a Democratic Socialist. He talks about seizing the means of production which makes him an outright communist. Well over 100,000 American lives were lost fighting against this ideology, along with a hundred million other people who were killed by communist regimes. 

He is slick and has managed to fool a lot of gullible people with promises of free stuff, which supposedly will be paid for by richer, whiter people. But the rich can simply leave. It is the middle class and homeowners who will bear the brunt of his expenditures. He is a relatively recent arrival and not a real New Yorker. Native New Yorkers are not supporting him. His support comes from the foreign born and affluent young radicals who have moved here from other parts of the country. They have not been educated in American values, but against them.

He is a Marxist and a nominal Muslim which gives him a convenient identity, but in all his pronouncements he is far more Marxist than Muslim. In fact Islam is even less compatible with Marxism than Christianity. He is also a hypocrite, not just because of his well-to-do family. He wants to eliminate all educational gifted programs, yet he himself went to the Bronx High School of Science, which is one of those schools. He is blatantly anti-semitic and opposes a Jewish state. He does have a minority of Jewish support, but they are more left than Jewish. 

Under Mamdani public safety will be infinitely worse. He wants to close the Rikers Island prison, he has been militantly anti-police, and will appoint judges that will free criminals into the city far more than they do now. They in turn will also make life miserable for the banks, who have already moved most of their jobs out of state. His regime  will terminally damage the finance industry, which in all likelihood will abandon New York, leaving only a shell of its former presence. So will many other businesses, leaving only mom and pop small businesses that can’t move, and who will be burdened with even more onerous taxes. Unemployment will rise when the job creators are gone. 

But the city will not totally collapse. There is simply too much critical mass for that to happen. However the New York we have known and loved will be but a shadow of itself. The wheels of commerce will grind to a halt, achievement and ambition will evaporate, infrastructure will continue to rot, public services will be diminished under incompetents, and the quality of life will greatly decline. But the left will have achieved the “equity” it wants- everyone remaining will be equally miserable. 

Much of the damage could be mitigated by the state, which has a lot of power over the city, but given that Governor Kathy Hochul has endorsed Mamdani there is not much relief to be found there unless she is voted out next year. 

I was born in New York and have lived here all my life. I have thought about leaving, like many others, but then think why should I leave? This is my home and I will still stay and fight. But then again if things go from miserable to intolerable I may have no choice. 

THE TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE

The Territorial Imperative is the title of a book by Robert Ardrey that shows how male animals, especially the alphas, are compelled to establish and defend, or even extend, their territory. Something along these lines appears to be stirring in the White House when it comes to places like Canada, Greenland, Panama, and Gaza. 

Of these, Canada is most compelling, provided of course that the Canadians are amenable to it. But offering to make the 51st state out of a territory so large is woefully inadequate. If we were to consider this seriously it should be on the basis of statehood for each Canadian province. That would yield ten new states (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec) along with three territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon). 

This would make the combined country the largest territory in the world, and provide a continuous line in the Arctic from Alaska to Greenland, another potential territory. Given that most Canadians live along the border with the USA in a narrow continuous strip, the whole process could be seamless. However this is not something that is going to come about unless the Canadians themselves want it, and pressure will only increase resistance. If anything the initiative for union should come from Canada, pursuant to advantages that might accrue by combining with the USA. 

On the other hand there is no particular reason why friendly countries cannot maintain independent, but closer relations. It would behoove us and our allies to move closer together, allowing more free movement and trade, while reducing, not increasing barriers. Unfortunately at the moment we appear to be headed in the latter direction. While things are moving well in Washington now, this is one area where reservations are in order. We share a common western civilization that should be fortified for our mutual long-term interests. 

The map of the world is not static, and changes virtually every year. It is sometimes due to the territorial imperative, often via war. One of the biggest problems arising with it is that extreme nationalists in every country think that their country should be at the maximum extent it was in the past, which obviously leads to conflicting overlapping visions of what borders should be, as well as chronic instability, if taken seriously.  But empires wax and wane, so that if every country sought to replicate their height of power and territory there would be endless conflict. 

This is reflected in the Russia-Ukraine war. Putin would like to restore the Russian empire to its greatest extent, and Ukraine is a historic and essential part of it. A case could be made that a common history makes this obvious, except for one thing: the Ukrainians clearly do not want it. Whatever was common in the past is in the past. Divergence has given contemporary Ukrainians a keen sense of their own identity and that cannot be undone. 

Such territorial claims can also be conflicting as we see in  the Middle East. But turning Gaza into a beach resort while displacing the native population is no solution. It is wrong to consider “Arabs” as interchangeable so that they can easily be resettled. For the Palestinians are not Arabs but consist largely of the indigenous population that was conquered by Arabs. There are people there whose origins go back to the Philistines, whose displacement would be morally indefensible. But it is true that a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and the West Bank separated by Israel is simply not viable. Gaza should be an independent city-state initially under international supervision and the Palestinian state proper should be confined to the west bank.  

It is one thing to engage in much-needed disruption to reform the government of the USA, and something else to tamper with a far more complex world order. For the latter will come with unanticipated consequences and events beyond anyone’s control. Let the macho instincts be confined to domestic affairs. 

 

HOW REPUBLICANS STOOD MARX ON HIS HEAD

If you ever wanted to make an argument for economic determinism, the recent election results provide fertile grounds for it, based upon voting patterns. There was a clear divide between the wealthiest segment of the population and everyone else. A majority of those making over $100,000 per year voted one way, while those earning less that $50,000 as well as everyone else, voted another way. Marxists argue that economic factors determine political attitudes, so that the well-,off vote for conservative candidates, while the lowest earners vote for the Left. This has been the case in countries around the world (until recently), so that the wealthy favored the Republicans while the common people voted for the Democrats. 

But the recent election completed upended this dichotomy. Although these groups aligned according to income predictably, who they voted for did not. The wealthiest segment voted left, i.e. Democrat, while virtually every other segment with lower incomes voted right, or Republican. The Democrats raised more money from their wealthier base than the Republicans, especially in down-ballot contests for congressional seats, where the disparity was greatest. 

Nevertheless there was economics involved in these choices, only not based upon wealth but rather prices. Inflation and the economy were the prime reasons the voting public moved right. Although most people thought the country was moving in the wrong direction and that the economy was not good, there were at least some who thought otherwise, because it was working for them.  These were people who were better off, with higher incomes, and were the only group to do well under the Biden administration. 

There were sharp differences in perception as to the state of things. People with higher incomes barely noticed supermarket prices. With more disposable income,  inflation did not affect their affluence the way it affected everyone else. Thus while economic concerns were paramount in the minds of voters, the prevailing notion of what outcomes this would produce were diametrically opposite to expectations regarding political behavior. Republicans have been transformed by this populist strain, finally becoming a true “peoples party.”

 

A HOSTILE TAKEOVER

There have been instances in the past where a new regime has come to power vowing to reform government, reduce spending, and reign in the bureaucracy. The incoming Trump administration is unusually strong in its determination to achieve these goals. They may well succeed, but the historical record is not encouraging. 

When an outsider takes the reins of an agency they are flying blind. They are immediately dependent upon the existing bureaucracy they have set out to reform for information, and hence are limited or compromised from the outset. In addition, the status quo exists because various interests are satisfied with it. Change under these circumstances is extremely difficult. I have seen this pattern time and again, with the bureaucracy almost always keeping the last word. The passing of Jimmy Carter brings recollections of an attempt during his presidency to implement efficiencies via “zero-based budgeting” as authored by my late cousin Peter, who worked on it at the time but, as with other attempts, the status quo resistance was too strong. 

But now we have something different;  akin to a hostile corporate takeover. It is quite possible that the Trump team may prove to be the exception, much in the same way the man himself is. It is true that the Trump team recognizes this problem and so they have come up with a series of cabinet nominees that are largely, and deliberately antithetical to the entities they are to control. They bring a sort of revolutionary fervor. Perhaps they will succeed, but the task is daunting unless they have someone with inside knowledge of the organization who is programmatically on the same page. They might do better with cadres who independently monitor the agency for adherence to the goals set by the administration, or some equivalent kind of compliance unit. The Musk-Ramaswami DOGE group may fulfill this function. 

Some of the nominees chosen thus far possess a good deal of critical fervor but may lack the necessary knowledge to get very far with it. Others have different problems. RFK Jr. may assume office and move on his health concerns, but the other part of that agency, human services, is likely to be on the chopping block, including programs he might be sympathetic to. It is quite possible that he, or others,  might wind up resigning in frustration after a few months. The most successful are likely to be those concerned with energy, natural resources, and the economy; all areas of Republican concern and expertise. 

Cutting back has become necessary owing to the vast body of government bloat and expanding national debt. This has come about because all entities seek growth and expansion, i.e. the enlargement of their domain, which parallels the pattern of power distribution. Every other segment of society has limitations, such as business competition, supply and demand, or customer numbers.  Government faces no such restraints, so it continually expands.

When things become so stultified the only fix is revolutionary- taking departments apart and reassembling them from scratch. Routine must be replaced by radical change in order to provide renewal, greater efficiency, and functional competence. The tasks for the new administration are daunting, but not impossible. The incoming government may not be able to go this far, but the closer they get to it, the better.

A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT

Ever since Donald Trump first began seriously pursuing the Republican nomination for President eight years ago, the media and the constellation of left-controlled institutions has done everything possible to de-legitimize his candidacy, and then his presidency. Every conceivable obstacle was thrown at him, from the phony Russian collusion hoax conjured up by the Hillary Clinton campaign, to two impeachment attempts, to endless politically-motivated lawsuits designed not just to destroy him politically but personally. Lesser men might have folded, but he, almost miraculously, managed to remain standing. 

While in office they refused to accept his legitimacy as President and did everything possible to undermine his administration, attacking not only him but anyone who disregarded their boycott and had the audacity to cooperate with his presidency. Prominent people were vilified for even trying to attend White House conferences on legitimate national concerns. So complete was the level of contempt that even his family was was targeted, notably Melania Trump, a former model, who never appeared on magazine covers under their control, unlike every other first lady. 

The media in particular not only relentlessly attacked him, but acted in concert to suppress news that was unfavorable to their side, such as the Hunter Biden laptop, or the senility of Joe Biden. But in spite of all of this, in the end it was the media that lost legitimacy, not Donald Trump. Public confidence in the dominant media has collapsed as a result, undermine the veracity of what they are reporting. The ideological slant is obvious now to everyone outside their bubble, for rather than exert influence as intended, they have instead raised the consciousness in opposition to their intent, especially on the part of working people. 

Yet despite all that was done to undermine him, and contrary to his supposed “authoritarianism” the truth is that while in office Donald Trump did not do a single thing to pursue his opposition. He did not use the mechanisms of government to abuse his power and attack his enemies. Ironically that is what was done to him, when out of office he was subjected to partisan “law-fare,” seriously damaging our legal system. It is nothing but their own heart of darkness that is at the root of the constant claims that he is obsessed with pursuing enemies while in office, when the only obsession in play is their own. 

His decisive victory, including winning the popular vote, seriously inhibits further attempts to undermine his presidency this time. As long as he is judicious in the use of power and does not fulfill the Left’s worse nightmares there is little basis, or public sympathy for hysterical opposition. Democracy has worked again. 

This election result was not so much a defeat of Kamala Harris as of the Left itself, which was unwisely empowered by Joe Biden without any public demand or support. Years of inflationary spending, rising prices, broken borders, weakness abroad, and certainly the imposition of “woke” policies alienated vast segments of the public, which finally found expression in the election results. 

The Democrats, in a general sense, are going to have to get with the program and move back to the center. To do so they need to stop catering to the radical left, which has mistakenly been considered their “base.” But in reality there are nowhere near enough of them to provide a base for a major party and it is time to jettison their undue influence. This is basically a center-right country and it is also time for elites to adjust to this reality with some common sense. 

Trump’s solid election victory now makes it impossible to continue treating him as an oddity, a menace, or an extremist. These election results have finally mainstreamed Trump and his party. They can no longer continue to deny his legitimacy, given such widespread public support. 

Thus, fortunately for the American people, we should see a return to normalcy in the sense that no questions regarding the election result could possibly change the outcome. The media and related institutions will be compelled to treat the incoming administration as legitimate, and Donald Trump as a clearly legitimate president.  

ALLIES ARE NOT ADVERSARIES

Although Trump is right on most issues and reflects majority opinion so thoroughly that the Harris campaign has flip-flopped to mimic these positions,  there is one glaring exception when it comes to foreign policy. Treating allies the same as adversaries is counterproductive and just plain wrong. We share a common civilization with Europe and ought to be moving closer rather than further apart. 

While some still lag on military expenditures, it is important to note that the Europeans contributed troops to Afghanistan throughout the conflict and suffered significant casualties. Despite that, they weren’t even informed in advance of our disastrous withdrawal. We have done most of the heavy lifting beginning with World War II, but it is for that very reason that we should continue to honor the sacrifices our predecessors made to give us the world we have today. 

It is one thing to place tariffs on China, and something else to do so on our allies. We need to look at the big picture. If you combined the entire population of the USA and Europe, we would still be less than the population of China or India. That suggests a serious long-term competitive disadvantage on our part as well as the Europeans. It is in our best interests to have a common policy with Europe, and rather than diminishing them we ought to be working towards closer ties and synchronization. That will enable the West to remain competitive and continue to lead in the long-term. 

Our adversaries are far better at long-term geopolitical thinking than we are. It is time we broadened our approach to facilitate our allied common interests. A renewed, more comprehensive Atlantic Alliance that facilitates the movement of goods and people through mutual preferences would enrich our societies. Our economies are already seriously integrated. It is surprising to note how many household brands we think of as American are actually European in origin, and vice versa. Thus, this could come about with minimum disruption. 

I hope that Trump’s criticisms directed at Europe are nothing more than tactical bluster. Overall and for the benefit of posterity across the Atlantic it is time to begin discussing closer ties, not deeper division.