No, I wouldn’t want to be President of the United States. I can’t even imagine it–but “wondering” about it opens a door for an exercise in introspection and exploration.
I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m an American and an Independent. I sift my own flour.
I’ve often thought that anyone who wants to be President of the United States, especially in these pivotal, complex times, is either half-baked, narcissistic, a megalomaniac–or a combination of all three. It’s almost as if the desire to be POTUS automatically excludes the candidate. In what universe does a person believe they can manage the most powerful nuclear-armed democratic nation on the planet? Paradoxically, people with these traits are apt to demand loyalty unto themselves, which is problematic. “Loyalty” means emotional, often blind devotion that lacks formal obligation (moral requirement to obey the law)–characteristics that define authoritarian regimes, terrorist organizations, organized crime syndicates, and cults. It’s also the case that loyalists are often hired for cabinet positions because they are “yes” people rather than for their experience, expertise, and integrity which abrogates the “push and pull” of the sound and civil argument necessary for making the crucial decisions that affect the lives of millions, if not billions. Although well-meaning at the time, the Judiciary Act of 1789 explicitly introduced "I serve at the pleasure of the President" into U.S. law specifically regarding the tenure of US Marshals but has since set the precedent that all Cabinet members serve at the President’s pleasure. This is not only nauseating but ironic given that it traces back to British constitutional practice where officials “served at the pleasure of the Crown” which smacks of the repugnant monarchy the Colonists rebelled against to give us America, not to mention that “at the pleasure of” sounds a lot like “whim” and doesn’t track well with the person who has the launch codes.
Seems like as soon as a President takes office, re-election becomes tantamount to the election that just took place. I wouldn’t want to hear about re-election from anyone: not from media, not from staff, not from politicians, not from polls. I’d want to hear about now, about this term. Managing the work and awesome responsibility charged to the Administration in addition to fussing over a campaign would severely strain and denature the work at hand. If an administration performs its duties with the integrity and excellence those duties demand, the duties they swore to uphold, the people would hire them again (It’s why the Golden State Warriors of the National Basketball Association have re-hired (contract extensions) Steph Curry four times).
From what I gather, much of governing has to do with favor-trading, in other words “quid pro quo,” which is fine if you’re buying coffee but not when your aim is to buy official actions and call it collaboration, coalition-building, and diplomacy. In legal contexts quid pro quo often refers to something that is in fact illegal, such as if a company gives a government official money in exchange for receiving a contract that rightly should be given to whatever company is best able to meet the requirements for the contract. That’s corruption. Me, I wouldn’t scratch backs and keep your hands off mine. I’d summarily veto bills with coercive, manipulative “riders” that border on blackmail (also illegal) and that have nothing to do with the essential aim of the bill. Profering a bill that can’t stand on its own merits is a questionable bill at best and/or plays to a narrow “specialized” audience.
A sure fire way to get summarily fired in my administration would be to engage in any form of deliberate subterfuge: in lies, in half truths, in obfuscation, in spin, or in the trendy “I can’t tell you because it’s a national security risk” when it’s not a national security risk but rather a ploy to protect the integrity and notoriety of politicians. If the truth hurts, then we’ll just have to hurt, heal, and if we can’t, perhaps consider another line of work. Anything less sacrifices our integrity and the integrity of the country.
Americans don’t wake up in the morning worried about the national debt and rightly so. They want to get their kids off to school, get ready for work, feed their pets, and have coffee if there’s time, not to mention they have their own finances to worry about. They trust the leaders they elected to take care of those kinds of issues in the same way children trust their parents to manage the family business even if the children have no idea–and they likely don’t–what that business is.
Most Americans don’t know that government takes at least five trillion dollars annually out of their pockets but owes thirty-eight trillion dollars to China, Japan, and the UK–plus interest, which is one trillion every year just on the interest alone which absolutely must be paid (Default would cause unthinkable economic collapse). Think about that: a trillion dollars a year–which is as much as we spend on defense–that buys nothing. Unfortunately, we cannot pay off the national debt because we’d have to raise taxes and cut spending at astronomical levels which would plunge Americans into economic despair. Paying a trillion dollars in interest every year, one fifth of revenue, cuts deeply into spending on programs and initiatives–including Social Security, Medicare, Veterans’ benefits, infrastructure–that benefit all Americans in one way or another. From my chair, the only conceivable way out of the debt crisis is to begin managing the debt by growing the economy faster than the debt and inflate it away–a little for a long time. Mild inflation devalues money so the debt shrinks: If prices rise, a dollar has less buying power. If inflation hovers at 3%, the dollar is worth $0.97. Mild inflation also stimulates economic growth by encouraging immediate consumer spending and business investment. If consumers and businesses know that prices will be higher in the future, they’ll tend to buy/invest now rather than hoard cash. Business investment means more jobs and, as businesses compete for workers, higher wages. The economy grows when more and more people have jobs to earn money to pay taxes and to buy–but with one caveat: Average American citizens have to be paid enough, paid beyond just survival wages, in the current economy to make a significant difference in the economy and in their lives, in realizing the American Dream.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, far below the inflation rate, and sixteen states default to that level. Although thirty-four states have established higher minimum wages (Washington state’s minimum wage is $17.13 per hour), the minimum wage sets the floor and the floor is absurdly too low. In order to live relatively comfortably, to live the American Dream, a family of four needs on average an annual salary of $150,000–or $72.25 per hour for one earner, $36.13 for two. The American Dream isn’t dead for some–but it is for most. It began dying in 1980 when tax rates for the wealthy declined considerably, when banks and financial institutions were de-regulated (which caused their collapse in 2008 triggering the worst global recession since 1930), when unions declined, when jobs were outsourced for cheaper wages, and when automation began taking jobs. The solution for the restoration of the American Dream is to restore it by policy that countermands the policies that lost it. It has taken a half century to destroy The Dream and it may take a half century to restore it. We’ve got to start sometime. If we don’t start now, the can will be kicked down the road “again” to posterity, to our children, to their children–ad infinitum.
In 2025 alone, your elected leaders wasted billions on needless and ridiculous projects that border on insanity: $25,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, $20M for a Sesame Street show in Iraq, $87.9 million to support farming in Afghanistan, $59M from FEMA for migrant housing in NYC hotels, $300,000 for DEI in bird-watching, millions on tourism initiatives in Egypt ($6M) and Tunisia ($50M), and funding to NGOs linked to terrorist organizations. Problem is, your elected Representatives approve these projects in isolation which makes a particular project like $25,000 for a transgender opera seem a pittance relative to a $7 trillion budget (2025) that wouldn’t be $7 trillion if these “pet projects” were eliminated–but they can’t be because “pork barrel politics” is about, and only about, securing votes and money for the Representatives who initiate the projects and who hijack our favor by making us feel “politically incorrect” if we disagree with the spending but not necessarily the project’s aim. Am I summarily anti-trans if I disagree with $25,000 for a transgender opera in Columbia?
I wouldn’t apologize for not playing the ever popular tax reduction game for political expediency, so I would not approve a middle class tax cut but there would be a tax hike–graduated over a long period–on the wealthy class and corporations (Yeah, I know. Political suicide). But take comfort, it’s not actually a hike, it’s the rate corporations and the wealthy should have been paying the past forty-five years. They owe you. America has gnashed its teeth over wealth inequality for nearly a half century and nothing has come of it except bitter division. However, as the wealth gap narrows so will discontent until the divisive rhetoric becomes a whisper through habituation (like getting used to traffic noise from a nearby freeway). In other words, the wealthy will eventually get used to a little less “wealth” the same way average Americans have gotten used to less and less the past half century. In fact, the American Dream has been pushed so far beyond American’s reach for so long that it has become mythical.
American culture has an addiction to instant gratification that is driven by digital technology, on-demand services, and a dopamine-driven quick-fix and want-it-now mentality. This behavioral trend prioritizes immediate pleasure over long-term planning. Politicians know and count on
America’s addiction, so they play the short-term because playing the long-term costs votes. Making decisions based on immediate, selfish, or practical political advantages–like winning votes or securing power rather than on principles, ethics, or long-term benefits–is political expediency and may win votes for politicians but at the expense of the American people who will ultimately lose whether they realize it or not. Afterall, long term goals like education, the environment, affordable healthcare, the national debt, and economic stability aren’t as alluring as a tax cut (however unaffordable). What to do? I’m aware of the pushback that comes from the idea that the government should operate as a parent but then paternalistic policies are often designed to aid people who aren’t responsible and make poor decisions–which are often the result of making decisions based on instant gratification. Oh, come on. You and I do it all the time. We seem to be in a hurry but rarely know why–as if we’re caught in the middle of a fast moving and impatient river from which there’s no escape. The pushback comes from a “perceived” assault on the “idea” of individualism and personal responsibility in the same way that children want autonomy and push back on authority. Whereas individualism is essential for personal and creative endeavors, it flies in the face of a democratic “society” where people are bound by a shared commitment to the rule of law, fundamental human rights, and the peaceful, voluntary participation of citizens in governance.
The US gives one hundred billion dollars in aid annually to foreign countries which seems ill-advised for a country mired in growing debt and struggling to service it. There’s no doubt foreign aid can reduce extreme poverty, lower infant mortality, and combat diseases–but not if its effectiveness is limited by corruption, inefficiency, and dependency rather than sustainable growth. A country doesn’t need to be governed well if foreign money keeps its leaders in power. I would continue the US’s foreign aid mission to ease the suffering of impoverished and afflicted people but not through Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the principal conduit for USAID, that have exhibited corruption through bribery, nepotism, fraud, and misappropriation of funds (e.g. Oxfam, Red Cross, Save the Children, World Vision, Doctors without Borders).
We inarguably need a strong defense, which is obviously expensive. American taxpayers spend a trillion dollars a year for defense and the current administration has just asked for another 500 billion. However, the Pentagon has consistently struggled to pass independent audits, meaning billions of dollars in assets and spending cannot be fully accounted for and yet Congress consistently passes defense budgets without enforcing consequences for failed audits, effectively allowing the Pentagon to operate with impunity. President Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex, a term he coined in 1961 that warned against "unwarranted influence" and the potential for "misplaced power." The MIC has been accused of perpetuating wars for profit, engaging in price gouging, and prioritizing profits over national security needs. How is this possible? That’s easy: Defense contractors donate tens of millions annually to Members of Congress who blindly approve of bloated defense budgets and then holler about high taxation (for the wealthy) and government spending for what I call “well-being” programs and initiatives like healthcare, education, and infrastructure improvement. The Pentagon is audited by the GAO (Government Accounting Office), an independent, non-partisan agency which is managed by the Comptroller General, who is appointed by the President–which makes it decidedly dependent and partisan. If it wasn’t, taxpayers wouldn’t be paying $52,000 for four trash cans (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/20/the-pentagons-52000-trash-can/).
I’m a Vietnam Combat Veteran and I’m trying to think about war from the perspective of a President and I just can’t come up with anything sane. I want to say “Absolutely no war” but then the reasons for war pop up and I have a knee-jerk reaction that tells me they’re inevitable and that’s the way it’s always been. However, further examination and a little critical thinking tells me they they’re not so much reasons as they are excuses: (1) “He hit me so I hit him back” or (2) “He hit my friend so I hit him back” or (3) “He threatened me, so I hit him” or (4) “He might become a threat, so I hit him” or (5) “He had what I wanted so I took it” or (6) “I had what he wanted and he took it.” Sounds a lot like children, doesn’t it? A million years or more ago we weren’t that stupid. We knew that if we didn’t cooperate we wouldn’t survive, which is why we are here, and yet we have managed to kill a billion of us during the past 13,000 years for those same lame excuses, although our leaders will tell us it’s more complicated than that. No it’s not. Why is the US bombing Iran at this very moment? Because our leaders believe Iran is a threat (4); because we want to support our allies in the Middle East, particularly Israel (3); and because they have attacked Americans abroad for the past forty years (1). Simple problems can have simple solutions (Occam’s Razor) but they’re often made complicated to hide the truth. Examination of war through regression most always leads to wealth and power. For example: Why the Vietnam War? To fight communism. Why fight communism? To protect capitalism. Why protect capitalism? To protect wealth accumulation. Why protect wealth accumulation? For power. Why protect power? For more wealth, for more power. In the meantime, we, “the people,” get death and debt. Some, however, will argue that war accelerates technological, medical, and social change–as if those changes couldn’t have advanced with peace and in time precluded war. However, I’m fairly certain most people would dismiss my ideas as chimerical—which is precisely why they matter–and I would respond by asking, “Have you become jaded” (a euphemism for intellectual laziness)?
There’s nothing in the US Constitution that explicitly says the US should police the globe or engage in reform or regime change. That’s the role of the UN which inarguably must be reformed from top to bottom. US taxpayers are the UN’s largest financial contributors, providing thirteen billion dollars annually, or one fourth of the UN budget. I agree with the critics who suggest the UN has become increasingly irrelevant or inefficient, failing its core mission of international peace and security. A brilliant former student of mine and Ivy League grad did an internship at the UN and, after quiting, described it as “disgusting” and “one big cocktail party.” Perhaps the US taxpayers are not getting their money’s worth (And, yes, that is a thinly veiled warning).
Up until 1970, the US was first in education among developed countries. Today it can’t break the top 25 and yet we spend far more per student than the other countries. It’s almost as if throwing money at the problem is not the solution. Nor is standardized testing that provides data for administrations and little to inform teaching because, well, administrators don’t teach, teachers do. Administrators file. Since the top down solution isn’t working that obviously leaves bottom up–as in reductionism. You know, like how you build a house or unravel a ball of string, which should be the task of the Department of Education but isn’t because the agency has become an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy with too much funding spent on compliance and administration rather than directly on classrooms. And it seems the National Education Association (NEA), the largest and strongest union in the US, has followed suit. In 2024, only a small fraction of the NEA's $432 million budget was spent on directly representing teachers, while a large portion went toward political causes. Some critics argue the organization has moved away from its original purpose of promoting education to a radical ideological agenda which is obvious given America’s dismal education standing on the world stage. The solution seems obvious, but not easy, by answering the following question: Why aren’t American students learning? No! Not the pandemic. Let’s trash that excuse right now. It’s not like the pandemic didn’t affect the more than twenty countries that top the US in education. Have you noticed that education is not part of the national conversation and have wondered why that is? Likely not–which is precisely why education is missing from the national conversation. Perhaps you’ve just proved that American’s, by and large, don’t care much about education, particularly past elementary school, and see schools as “daycares.” Politicians know that and stay away from it. It’s just not a big vote getter. Never mind that “effective” education is the bedrock of any society. Until Americans realize and embrace that, any “serious” discussion about how to fix education is pointless. But be advised, the bedrock has been crumbling for more than a half century and it will take at least that long to rebuild it. In the meantime, do you suppose the youth of today will be sufficiently prepared to run things, both government and private, tomorrow? Based on what, the past few decades? How so?
Speaking of poor education: Too many people tend to judge climate change based on the weather they just experienced—such as a particularly cold or hot day—rather than looking at long-term, global, multi-decadal trends which requires effort. Weather refers to atmospheric conditions over a short period (days, weeks), whereas climate is the average of these conditions over decades. Both weather and climate use the same terminology—temperature, rainfall, and wind—which leads to confusion. A single, extreme, cold event is often mistaken as evidence against global warming, when in reality, the warming climate drives more extreme, varied, and unpredictable weather patterns.
Climate change is expected to become acutely disastrous by 2050, as the world is poised to breach the 1.5°C warming threshold. By 2050, 1.1 billion more people will face severe rains, 900 million will face drought, and 3.3 billion will experience water stress, with risks of, or even irreversible, ecosystem collapses. The world is already experiencing and will continue to see intensified extreme weather—heatwaves, droughts, and floods—leading to increasing, recurring, and costlier disasters. By 2050, up to 132 million people could be pushed into poverty, with another 24 million at risk of hunger due to climate-driven agricultural failures. By 2070 and beyond, temperatures could rise 3-4°C and large parts of the planet may become uninhabitable, leading to potential social and economic collapse. By 2100, without significant emissions cuts, the world could see a 3.3–5.7°C increase by the end of the century, causing widespread extinctions, massive sea-level rises, and irreversible damage.
And then there’s the lame excuse among a plethora of lame excuses that climate change has happened before. Yes, it has–but not when 8 billion people (who drive 1.6 billion cars) inhabited the planet to hasten the planet’s demise and who will also suffer the consequences. I believe that’s called “digging your own grave”--or rather the graves of your progeny. Politicians who are climate change deniers are generally motivated by appeasing their corporate benefactors and their loyal constituents who likely have no clue about the science–and don’t want to know.
I am one of the majority of Americans who support various policies to reduce climate change, such as transitioning to renewable energy, strengthening environmental regulations, and providing tax incentives for clean technology. However, significant partisan divides exist on specific approaches. The trick then is to narrow the divide between the party that supports climate actions and the politically expedient party that does not and hope that it happens before Manhattan residents are wading waist deep in Atlantic water.
Illegal drug use in the United States causes massive, multi-faceted damage, creating an estimated economic burden of nearly one trillion dollars annually. The crisis is dominated by synthetic opioids, primarily fentanyl, which drive a public health emergency responsible for over 100,000 overdose deaths per year. This illicit trade is largely fueled by Mexican drug trafficking cartels who import fentanyl and methamphetamine, resulting in significant impacts on health, criminal justice, and the economy–and it’s no secret that the Mexican authorities all the way to the top are corrupt.
While U.S. military forces are currently assisting Mexico with intelligence and equipment, direct military intervention on Mexican soil without the express consent of the “corrupt” Mexican government has historically been considered an unacceptable violation of sovereignty and is a source of significant political and diplomatic tension. To my mind, an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of a “corrupt” government does not outweigh 100,000 American overdose deaths annually, not to mention the trillion dollar cost. “Sovereignty” cuts both ways. Mexico is sending, unintended or not, drugs (an enemy) over the border and that’s a violation of US sovereignty. Why we haven’t used the military long ago is beyond me. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the US military to eliminate the drug cartels to the degree that even the thought of going back into business would incite terror.
I’m seventy-four years old and, until the past few years, I hadn’t heard of a southern border problem or an illegal immigration problem, and I’ve never been bothered by a Latino. In fact, odds are that I’m more likely to be accosted by a native born citizen than an illegal immigrant (per capita). As a teenager in the early-60s, I picked beans alongside Mexican immigrants in Southern Oregon bean fields and knew them to be uncommonly kind and incredibly hard workers. They were likely products of the Bracero Program (1942–1964), a series of diplomatic agreements between the US and Mexico that brought over 4.5 million Mexican citizens to the US for temporary agricultural and railroad labor to address wartime shortages. Initiated during World War II, the program allowed for contracted, legal labor, though it was marked by widespread worker exploitation (Read that last line again) and hasn’t stopped. If you want a capitalist society, you have to deal with corruption and America’s illegal immigration problem is a part of that corruption but not in the way you think. The corruption does not come from the workers, the corruption comes from the agricultural industry’s greed, namely profit maximization from cheap labor at all costs. You know, from those brown people who bend in sweltering fields twelve hours or more a day to pick your fruit and vegetables for a pittance so you don’t have to pay ten dollars for a head of lettuce. That way you can enjoy your cheap salad and sip your wine while castigating and promoting the deportation of the very people who brought it to you because you erroneously and stupidly believe they’re gangsters, murderers, and rapists when, in fact, they are far less likely to commit crimes than native born citizens. Like, when’s the last time a Latino assaulted you? Nawww, this isn’t an immigration problem, it’s a racist problem and a lack of critical thinking problem.
