Archive for ‘Political commentary’

September 5, 2026

Maybe We Should Interview Presidents Differently

by Steve Dana

Every four years America conducts the most expensive job interview in the world.

The 2028 presidential election may sound like it’s still a long way off. It isn’t. Once we get through the midterm elections this fall, the next presidential campaign will begin taking shape almost immediately. Candidates will start testing messages, courting donors, building organizations and introducing themselves to the American people. Before they spend the next two years telling us why they deserve the job, maybe this is a good time for us—the people doing the hiring—to decide what qualifications we’re looking for.

And I’m beginning to wonder whether we ask the right questions.

We ask presidential candidates where they stand on abortion, taxes, immigration, guns, climate change, foreign policy, Social Security and a hundred other issues. Republicans want to know whether the candidate is conservative enough. Democrats want to know whether theirs is progressive enough. Interest groups have scorecards. Donors have priorities. Activists have litmus tests.

But the person we elect will become the chief executive of the United States.

Maybe somewhere along the way we ought to ask:

What have you actually run?

That question seems almost embarrassingly simple.

Yet we have spent most of my lifetime electing professional politicians to an executive position unlike any other on earth.

Why This Matters

The President of the United States is responsible for an executive branch that spends trillions of dollars, employs millions of people directly and indirectly, negotiates with allies and adversaries, oversees the military, responds to disasters, enforces federal law and makes decisions that can affect American lives for generations.

This isn’t an honorary position.

It isn’t a reward for giving the best speech.

And it shouldn’t be the final promotion in a political career.

We ought to care whether the person asking for the job has demonstrated some ability to do the job.

Donald Trump, for all his faults, forced me to think differently about that.

I don’t believe America needs another Donald Trump.

I do believe America should learn something from having elected him.

The Professional Political Résumé

For most of modern history, we have treated government experience as one of the principal qualifications for the presidency.

A candidate served in the House.

Then the Senate.

Maybe became governor.

Perhaps served as vice president.

He accumulated twenty or thirty years in public life and eventually we were told that all that experience made him ready for the Oval Office.

Maybe.

But experience doing what?

Political professionals become very good at politics. They learn how to raise money, assemble coalitions, make speeches, win elections, work committees, negotiate legislation and satisfy constituencies.

Those are useful skills.

But they aren’t the same skills required to run the largest, most consequential  organizations in the world.

A senator doesn’t have to make payroll.

Congress can spend more money than it collects year after year and call the result a budget.

A business owner who tries that long enough gets introduced to his banker under less pleasant circumstances.

Political professionals spend enormous amounts of money, but almost none of it belongs to them. They make decisions affecting businesses they have never operated and employees they have never hired.

And when a government program fails?

Nobody goes broke.

Nobody loses the house.

Nobody tells the family that the business is gone because Dad made the wrong decision.

They hold a hearing.

Then they appropriate some more money.

That is a very different education from the education received by someone whose mistakes have consequences.

Failure Is Experience Too

One criticism of Donald Trump has always been that some of his business ventures failed.

That’s true.

But I’m not sure failure is always the disqualification we pretend it is.

I’ve been in business. Failure teaches things success never gets around to mentioning.

You hire the wrong person.

You misjudge the market.

You borrow too much.

You trust somebody you shouldn’t have trusted.

You make a deal that looked wonderful on paper and discover reality forgot to read the proposal.

Then you live with it.

Trump has had spectacular successes and spectacular failures. Whatever else we think of him, he has operated in an environment where decisions have consequences.

That matters.

I’d like presidential candidates to be able to answer a question we rarely ask:

Tell me about something you really screwed up. What did it cost you, and what did you learn?

I’d learn more from that answer than from another rehearsed speech about their vision for America.

The Pragmatist

Years ago I came across a piece falsely attributed to Charles Krauthammer arguing that Trump was neither really liberal nor conservative, but a pragmatist.

Krauthammer didn’t write it. The attribution was bogus.

But the thought stuck with me.

A pragmatist sees a problem and asks how to solve it.

Not: What is the Republican solution?

Not: What is the Democratic solution?

What works?

The bogus essay argued that immigration isn’t fundamentally a Republican or Democratic problem. Neither are trade, debt or economic decline. They are American problems requiring workable solutions.

That idea is bigger than Donald Trump.

In fact, I hope it eventually outlives him.

One of the frustrations of modern politics is that ideology too often dictates the permitted solution before anybody finishes defining the problem.

Democrats and Republicans have constituents they must satisfy.

And frequently those constituents are not the voters.

The political class develops priorities that frequently aren’t the priorities of the people paying the bills.

Then everybody retreats to their corner and calls the stalemate principle.

Maybe we could use more pragmatists.

The Art of the Deal

As painful as it may be for some people to admit, Trump’s The Art of the Deal contains another qualification we should think about when selecting presidents.

Negotiation.

Trump sees negotiations differently from most politicians.

He understands leverage.

He understands opening positions.

He understands that the first proposal doesn’t necessarily have to be the final proposal.

He understands that sometimes you begin by asking for something outrageous because doing so changes the boundaries of the conversation.

Some of Trump’s proposals sound preposterous.

Sometimes they probably are preposterous.

Trump is fully capable of saying something ridiculous without having formulated a master strategy beforehand.

But it is equally foolish to assume that every outrageous opening is proof that he hasn’t thought about what comes next.

An extreme opening position can establish an anchor.

It can force the opponent to react to your proposal instead of allowing you to react to his.

It can reveal what the other side really values.

And it can create room for an eventual agreement that would have looked impossible before the negotiation began.

Trump also understands something politicians frequently forget:

Sometimes no deal is better than a bad deal.

Government officials often enter negotiations under tremendous pressure to produce an agreement. If everyone knows you must return home waving a signed document, your opponent already possesses leverage.

A businessman learns that occasionally the most powerful word in a negotiation is no.

I don’t need the next president to have Trump’s personality.

But I’d like him to understand leverage.

The Trouble With Trump

None of this requires pretending Donald Trump doesn’t come with enough baggage to fill an airport carousel.

He can be crass.

He is vain.

His ego enters the room several minutes before the rest of him.

He turns disagreements into personal battles that never needed to happen.

He can insult somebody who might have helped him ten minutes later.

His discipline leaves something to be desired.

And sometimes his mouth obscures a perfectly legitimate argument.

Trump’s supporters occasionally make the mistake of believing that because his enemies exaggerate his faults, we have to pretend those faults don’t exist.

We don’t.

Trump can behave like a buffoon.

But he’s no dummy.

And confusing those two things can be a serious mistake.

The characteristics that make Trump difficult can sometimes make him effective.

His unpredictability creates chaos, but it can also prevent opponents from knowing exactly what he will do.

His ego creates unnecessary conflict, but it also makes him difficult to intimidate.

His willingness to violate political conventions can be embarrassing, but it also allows him to question assumptions that professional politicians stopped questioning years ago.

His stubbornness can prevent compromise.

It can also prevent surrender.

The trick for the future isn’t finding another Trump.

It is identifying which characteristics were valuable and finding them in somebody with better self-control.

The Candidate After Trump

The next round of interviews is about to begin. Suppose this time we interviewed presidential candidates differently.

What have you built?

What have you run?

How many people have depended upon your decisions for their livelihood?

Have you ever been responsible for a real budget you couldn’t simply increase?

Have you negotiated when your own money or reputation was at risk?

Have you ever hired somebody smarter than you?

Have you fired somebody you personally liked because they couldn’t do the job?

When did you abandon a plan because the facts showed it wasn’t working?

Tell us about your biggest failure.

Tell us what it cost you.

Tell us what you learned.

And perhaps most importantly:

Can you listen to experts without becoming captive to them?

A President needs experts.

Nobody understands everything from nuclear weapons to epidemiology to monetary policy to artificial intelligence.

But experts advise.

Presidents decide.

The adviser can write another paper explaining why his theory should have worked.

The President has to live with what actually happened.

I’d like a President capable of listening carefully to the smartest people in the room and then asking:

That’s a fine theory. Does the damned thing work?

What We Should Keep

Our MAGA discussions have repeatedly led me to the same conclusion.

Trump and the ideas associated with him don’t have to remain permanently attached to one another.

Some of the ideas are bigger than the man.

So are some of the lessons about leadership.

Maybe presidential experience should include more than government service.

Maybe building something matters.

Maybe meeting payroll matters.

Maybe negotiating matters.

Maybe failure matters.

Maybe accountability matters.

Maybe having operated in the real world, where arithmetic eventually wins every argument, matters too.

And then let’s add the qualities we wish Trump possessed in greater quantity.

Humility.

Discipline.

Temperament.

The ability to hear criticism without treating it as betrayal.

The ability to admit error without believing the admission makes him weak.

Confidence without constant self-celebration.

Strength without needless cruelty.

Pragmatism without chaos.

Imagine a candidate with substantial executive experience, negotiating ability, an understanding of risk and accountability, the willingness to challenge stale assumptions—and enough humility and discipline not to make every issue about himself.

That sounds like somebody worth interviewing.

Every four years Americans are told we are choosing the most powerful leader in the world.

Maybe it’s time we stopped conducting the interview as though we’re selecting the chairman of a political club.

The presidency is an executive job.

We ought to start hiring accordingly.

FIND ME FOR LONG FORM PUNDITRY AT SUBSTACK AS WELL http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com/

July 17, 2026

The Covenant Above the Tribe

by Steve Dana

Human beings are tribal by nature.

Read Steve’s work on Substack http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com

That is not an insult. It is an observation. We are born into families, neighborhoods, languages, customs, churches, histories, and loyalties that we did not invent. Long before we learn political theory, we learn who “our people” are. We learn who is safe. We learn who is suspect. We learn who shares our values, our stories, our habits, and our assumptions about the world.

Tribal instinct is not always evil. It can produce loyalty, courage, sacrifice, duty, and love. A man who will not defend his family is not morally superior because he has risen above tribe. He is morally deficient because he has failed the first test of loyalty. The same is true of neighborhoods, churches, communities, and nations. Human beings need belonging.

But the same instinct that binds people together can also turn poisonous. The line between “I love my people” and “your people are in my way” is not as thick as civilized people like to imagine.

That is the problem America has always tried to solve.

Our country was not founded on the fantasy that human beings would stop forming factions. The Founders understood human nature better than most modern political operators do. They knew that individuals and groups would seek advantage. They knew that people would organize around interest, passion, resentment, wealth, religion, region, and identity. They knew that majorities could become oppressive and minorities could become desperate. They knew that power, once acquired, is rarely surrendered gracefully.

That is why America was built not merely as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic. Majority rule matters, but majority rule alone is not justice. A majority can be wrong. A majority can be vengeful. A majority can violate the rights of the minority. A majority can turn government into an instrument of punishment. A majority can convince itself that because it has the votes, it also has moral permission to do whatever it wants.

The Founders knew better.

The purpose of the American covenant was to place something higher than tribe, faction, party, race, religion, class, and temporary political victory. That higher thing was the idea that all citizens stand under the same Constitution, possess rights that government did not create, and owe allegiance to a common civic order. The American bargain was not that every person would be the same. It was not that ancestry, culture, religion, and family history would disappear. The bargain was that those identities would be subordinated to citizenship.

That is a demanding idea.

It asks human beings to do something they do not naturally do. It asks them to restrain their own tribe when their tribe has power. It asks them to protect the rights of people they do not like. It asks them to honor the law even when the law benefits their opponent. It asks them to accept election results they did not want. It asks them to teach their children that liberty is not merely personal freedom, but ordered freedom under a shared moral and constitutional discipline.

That is America at its best.

But America at its worst is what happens when the covenant weakens and the tribes take over.

Political partisans understand this better than they admit. When they are in the majority, they speak the language of mandate, democracy, progress, justice, and the will of the people. When they are in the minority, they speak the language of rights, restraint, fairness, oppression, and abuse of power. The same people who celebrate majority power when it serves them often discover constitutional limits the moment power changes hands.

That is not unique to one party. It is not unique to American politics. It is human nature.

The group in power wants to use power. The group out of power wants to limit power. The majority says, “We won.” The minority says, “You are going too far.” When the tables turn, the speeches change, but the instinct remains.

This is why the struggle between majority and minority power must never be dismissed as merely academic. It is the living tension at the center of every government. In neighborhoods, gangs, legislatures, school boards, city councils, churches, nations, and civilizations, the side with power sets the terms. The side without power looks for ways to survive, resist, organize, and eventually replace the ruling coalition.

That is the nature of power.

The danger becomes greater in a multicultural society, because people do not organize only around policy. They organize around identity, memory, grievance, and fear. A group that cannot form a majority on its own may join with other groups that share little except a common opponent. These coalitions can be powerful. They can also be fragile, cynical, and dangerous.

A coalition built around shared principles can strengthen a republic.

A coalition built around shared resentment can destroy one.

This is where America’s modern challenge becomes so serious. We often talk as if our racial and cultural divisions are unique to us. They are not. Tribal conflict is one of the oldest facts of human history.

The world is full of examples. Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Indonesian peoples may all be called “Asian” from a distance, but they are not interchangeable peoples with one shared memory. Many carry histories of conquest, occupation, contempt, humiliation, and war. In the Middle East, Sunni and Shiite Muslims have fought for centuries over faith, legitimacy, power, and blood. In Europe, Protestants and Catholics killed each other in the name of God, nation, crown, and doctrine. Jews have been persecuted across civilizations by people who claimed moral and religious authority. In Africa, tribal and ethnic conflicts have often produced cruelty that outsiders barely understand. Around the world, majorities have used power against minorities, and minorities have dreamed of the day when power would shift.

America did not invent tribal conflict.

America’s claim was that it had found a way to rise above it.

Not perfectly. Not always. Not without hypocrisy. Not without sin. Not without slavery, discrimination, exclusion, injustice, and failure. But the claim still mattered. The American idea said there was a standard above tribe by which even America itself could be judged. That is why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution remain so powerful. They did not merely describe what America already was. They declared what America was obligated to become.

That obligation is the covenant.

A covenant is more than a contract. A contract says, “I will do this if you do that.” A covenant says, “We are bound together by something higher than immediate advantage.” The American covenant says that we are not merely competing tribes living under one flag. We are citizens of one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Those words are easy to recite. They are hard to live.

They require the old majority to understand that historic dominance does not grant permanent ownership of the country. They require rising minorities to understand that past mistreatment does not justify future revenge. They require immigrants to understand that coming to America means more than gaining access to jobs, schools, benefits, safety, and opportunity. It means entering a civic inheritance that demands loyalty, gratitude, duty, and participation. They require native-born citizens to understand that citizenship is not automatic virtue. A person can be born here and still despise the covenant. A person can come from somewhere else and embrace it with reverence.

That last point matters.

This argument is not a defense of bloodline America. It is a defense of covenant America.

A Hispanic citizen who loves the Constitution is more American in spirit than a white citizen who hates it. A black pastor who teaches family, duty, faith, and ordered liberty is more faithful to the American covenant than a wealthy elite who funds contempt for the country while enjoying every benefit it provides. An immigrant who comes here determined to become an American is a blessing to the nation. A native-born citizen who teaches children that America is nothing more than oppression is a danger to the nation.

The dividing line cannot simply be race, ethnicity, birthplace, or ancestry.

The dividing line must be allegiance.

Do you believe in the American covenant or not?

That is the central question.

For much of our history, immigrants came to America with a clear understanding. They came from places where opportunity was limited, governments were corrupt, religious liberty was fragile, class barriers were hard, poverty was inherited, and political power belonged to someone else. America was not perfect, but it offered something rare: a chance.

The older immigrant bargain was simple: come here, work hard, become American, and your children can rise.

Those immigrants did not always abandon their food, language, churches, customs, or family traditions. Nor should they have been expected to. But the public expectation was clear. Heritage was permitted. Citizenship was primary. The hyphen might describe ancestry, but it was not supposed to outrank America.

Something changed.

Over the last several decades, the older language of assimilation weakened. The melting pot gave way to a different model, one that often placed ethnic identity, grievance, and ancestral recovery at the center of public life. America’s institutions became less confident in teaching newcomers why becoming American was an honor. At the same time, our schools, universities, media, and political movements increasingly taught native-born children to view their country not as a flawed but noble inheritance, but as a source of shame.

That has consequences.

The first-generation immigrant often compares America to the country he left. He remembers the corruption, poverty, fear, violence, limitation, or hopelessness. He is grateful. He works. He sacrifices. He tells his children that America gave the family a future.

The second-generation child may compare America not to the country his parents escaped, but to an abstract moral ideal presented in a classroom. He may be taught that America’s failures define it more than its achievements. He may inherit the fruits of assimilation while being taught to despise the tree that bore them.

That is a civic tragedy.

It is also politically useful.

A grateful citizen is hard to manipulate. A resentful identity group is easier to organize. Political operatives understand this. They know how to cultivate suspicion between groups. They know how to turn history into grievance and grievance into turnout. They know that several minority groups with little in common can be assembled into a majority if they can be persuaded to oppose the same enemy. They know that people who might not share values can still share resentment.

That is not nation-building.  That is faction-building.

And faction-building is not enough to sustain a republic.

A republic requires citizens who can say, “My group may benefit from this policy, but it is still wrong.” It requires citizens who can say, “My party has the votes, but the Constitution still restrains us.” It requires citizens who can say, “My ancestors suffered, but I am not entitled to punish my neighbors for sins they did not commit.” It requires citizens who can say, “My family came from another country, but my loyalty now belongs here.” It requires citizens who can say, “My country has failed, but I still love it enough to repair it rather than curse it.”

Love of country is not blindness.

Patriotism does not require pretending America has never done wrong. In fact, real patriotism requires the courage to tell the truth about national failures. But there is a difference between correction and contempt. There is a difference between loving your country enough to improve it and hating your country enough to dismantle it.

A child who is taught only America’s sins will not inherit America’s virtues.

A newcomer who is welcomed into benefits but not into the covenant will not necessarily become a citizen in the moral sense.

A political party that treats people as demographic inventory will not build national unity.

A majority that uses power for revenge will teach the next minority to seek revenge when its turn comes.

That is the cycle we must break.

The answer is not for one tribe to defeat all the others. That would merely prove the danger. If the old majority seeks only restoration of dominance, it has misunderstood America. If rising minorities seek only payback, they have also misunderstood America. If immigrants come only for material benefit without allegiance, they have misunderstood America. If native-born citizens inherit liberty without duty, they have misunderstood America.

America cannot survive as a spoils system among competing tribes.

It can only survive as a covenant people.

That means we must recover a language of citizenship that is firmer, clearer, and more honest than the language we use now. We should not be afraid to say that immigration requires assimilation. Not cultural erasure, but civic assimilation. We should not be afraid to say that English matters, common history matters, constitutional literacy matters, public order matters, borders matter, voting matters, military and civic service matter, and gratitude matters.

We should not be afraid to say that rights come with duties.

We should not be afraid to say that America is worth loving.

That may be the most radical statement left in public life: America is worth loving.

Not because she is flawless. She is not.

Not because every generation has lived up to her promises. It has not.

Not because every leader has been honorable. Many have not been.

America is worth loving because the covenant is worth preserving. A nation founded on the claim that rights come from God, that government exists by consent, that citizens are equal before the law, that speech and worship are free, that power must be limited, and that justice belongs to all is a nation with a moral architecture rare in human history.

If we lose that, we will not replace it with utopia.

We will replace it with tribes.

And tribes know what to do with power.

This brings us back to the practical lesson: the people who show up get to have their way.

A constitutional majority will not appear by magic. A civic majority must be formed, taught, organized, and mobilized. People who believe in the American covenant must stop assuming that their values will govern automatically because they are decent, quiet, hardworking, and normal. Quiet people are not in charge. Organized people are.

The future is being shaped in school board meetings, city council chambers, county offices, state legislatures, curriculum committees, party caucuses, churches, neighborhood groups, and primary elections. The people who attend those meetings, ask questions, run for seats, fund candidates, teach children, write arguments, and build institutions are the people who steer the country.

Absence is surrender.

If citizens who love America stay home, citizens who want to transform America will not pause out of courtesy. They will govern. They will write curriculum. They will staff agencies. They will nominate candidates. They will interpret laws. They will shape language. They will define justice. They will decide what children are taught to love and what they are taught to hate.

That is not a complaint. It is a reality.

In a republic, power goes to those who participate.

So the call is not merely to resentment. Resentment is easy. The call is to responsibility.

If we believe America is a covenant, we must teach the covenant.

If we believe citizenship matters, we must practice citizenship.

If we believe immigrants should become Americans, we must be confident enough to tell them what that means.

If we believe our children should love their country, we must give them reasons to love it.

If we believe power must be restrained, we must restrain our own side when our own side wins.

If we believe liberty and justice are for all, we must defend them even for people outside our tribe.

That is the hard patriotism America requires now.

The temptation of the age is to retreat into tribe. Every group can justify doing so. Every group has wounds. Every group has fears. Every group can tell stories of mistreatment. Every group can point to another group and say, “They would do it to us if they had the chance.”

Maybe they would.

That is precisely why the covenant matters.

The covenant is not needed because human beings are naturally fair. It is needed because we are not. It is not needed because majorities are always wise. It is needed because they are not. It is not needed because minorities are always noble. It is needed because they are human too. It is not needed because power corrupts only our enemies. It is needed because power tempts everyone.

America’s survival depends on whether enough of us still believe there is something higher than winning.

Higher than party.

Higher than race.

Higher than ancestry.

Higher than grievance.

Higher than revenge.

Higher than the temporary satisfaction of seeing our opponents humiliated.

That higher thing is the American covenant.

One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Not one tribe over another.

Not one faction above the law.

Not one coalition entitled to rule forever.

Not one grievance given permission to become tyranny.

One nation.

That is the promise.

That is the duty.

That is the inheritance.

And if we want to keep it, we had better start acting like citizens again.

July 2, 2026

In Defense of Capitalism: Blaming the Engine for the Road Government Built

by Steve Dana

Young people today often say capitalism has failed them. They look at the cost of rent, groceries, gas, tuition, insurance, health care, and vehicles, and they conclude the system is broken. Then they look at Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, and the rest of America’s billionaire class, and they decide they have found the villains.

It is an understandable reaction, but it is the wrong conclusion.

Capitalism did not make ordinary life unaffordable.

Government distorted capitalism until ordinary life became unaffordable, and then taught people to blame capitalism.

That is the point we need to recover.

Capitalism does not operate in a vacuum. It operates inside a framework created by government. Government controls the money supply. Government influences interest rates. Government taxes income, property, fuel, payroll, investment, business activity, and consumption. Government regulates housing, energy, transportation, labor, health care, education, banking, insurance, construction, and nearly every other sector of the economy.

Then private businesses are expected to function inside that framework, absorb those costs, comply with those rules, pay those taxes, survive those mandates, and still keep prices low enough that customers do not revolt.

When they cannot, capitalism gets blamed.

That is dishonest.

A restaurant owner does not set the price of a hamburger in a vacuum. He looks at beef, buns, cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fryer oil, paper goods, napkins, cleaning supplies, rent, utilities, insurance, wages, payroll taxes, workers’ compensation, credit-card fees, repairs, equipment, spoilage, licensing, bookkeeping, regulation, and debt service. He adds all those costs together, hopes customers will still walk through the door, and tries to make enough profit to survive.

If the hamburger that used to cost five dollars now costs sixteen, the lazy explanation is greed. The real explanation is cost.

And where do many of those costs come from? Inflation, regulation, labor mandates, taxes, energy policy, insurance mandates, compliance costs, permitting delays, and the steady destruction of the dollar’s purchasing power.

That is not Bill Gates’ fault. That is not Warren Buffett’s fault. That is not capitalism failing. That is government interference showing up on the menu board.

The same is true of housing. Builders did not forget how to build houses. Developers did not suddenly decide to make starter homes unaffordable. Government made land use more complicated, zoning more restrictive, permitting more expensive, environmental review more time-consuming, infrastructure fees more burdensome, and construction compliance more costly. Then people look around and wonder why young families cannot buy a house.

The answer is not capitalism. The answer is artificial scarcity created by government policy.

If government restricts where housing can be built, what kind of housing can be built, how dense it can be, how long approvals take, what fees must be paid, what materials must be used, and what conditions must be satisfied before a shovel hits the dirt, the result will be fewer homes and higher prices.

That is not a market failure. That is a government failure.

Energy is another example. Fuel is not just something we buy at the pump. Energy is embedded in everything. It is in farming, trucking, refrigeration, construction, manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, heating, cooling, and retail. Raise the cost of energy and you raise the cost of everything.

When government restricts supply, discourages investment, blocks infrastructure, mandates preferred technologies, or punishes certain fuels before alternatives are ready, the cost does not stay in the energy sector. It spreads through the entire economy.

The customer sees the price of groceries. The business owner sees the fuel surcharge.

Again, capitalism gets blamed for a cost structure government helped create.

Money is the deepest layer of all. When government spends more than it takes in, borrows endlessly, and depends on monetary policy to keep the whole machine moving, the dollar loses value over time. That loss of purchasing power is not dramatic in a single year. It is devastating over decades.

A little inflation sounds harmless when politicians and economists talk about it. Two percent here, three percent there. But inflation compounds. Given enough time, it changes civilization. A five-dollar hamburger becomes sixteen dollars. A five-thousand-dollar truck becomes fifty thousand. A fifty-thousand-dollar house becomes a million-dollar house in some markets.

People then ask why everything costs so much.

The answer is simple: the dollar buys less.

Private business did not create that cycle. Government did.

Businesses respond to the value of money. They do not create the value of money. A business owner charging more dollars for the same product may not be making more real profit at all. He may simply be trying to keep up with a currency that has been weakened beneath his feet.

This is where the attack on capitalism becomes morally backward. Capitalism creates goods and services. Government debases money. Then capitalism gets blamed when goods and services require more dollars.

A free market creates abundance. Bad policy makes abundance harder to afford.

Consider the smartphone. Many of capitalism’s loudest critics complain about capitalism on thousand-dollar phones using private-sector technology, private-sector platforms, private-sector networks, private-sector software, private-sector logistics, and private-sector innovation. They carry in their pockets a device more powerful than anything kings, presidents, or generals possessed for most of human history.

Capitalism made that possible.

And yet they say capitalism failed because rent is too high, tuition is impossible, health care is unaffordable, and wages do not stretch far enough.

They are right that life has become too expensive. They are wrong about why.

The real problem is not that capitalism cannot produce. The problem is that government has made the basics of life too expensive by manipulating, regulating, subsidizing, restricting, taxing, borrowing, and inflating.

That distinction matters because a wrong diagnosis produces a destructive cure.

If young people are taught that capitalism is the problem, they will demand more government control over the very sectors government has already distorted. Housing is too expensive, so they demand more government intervention. College is too expensive, so they demand more government money. Health care is too expensive, so they demand more government control. Wages are tight, so they demand more labor mandates. Energy is expensive, so they demand more centralized planning.

Then prices rise again, shortages grow worse, small businesses disappear, choices narrow, and the same voices say, “See? Capitalism failed.”

No. Capitalism was never allowed to work honestly.

That does not mean every business is virtuous. It does not mean every wealthy person earned wealth honorably. It does not mean corporations never behave badly. Some companies exploit government favors. Some lobby for regulations that crush their smaller competitors. Some use political influence to protect themselves from competition. Some enjoy subsidies, bailouts, tax preferences, and regulatory barriers that ordinary entrepreneurs could never access.

But that is not capitalism. That is cronyism.

There is a vast difference between a free market and a rigged market. In a free market, businesses win by serving customers better. In a rigged market, businesses win by influencing government. In a free market, profit is earned by creating value. In a rigged market, profit is protected by political power.

The answer to cronyism is not socialism. The answer is less favoritism, less manipulation, less central planning, and more honest competition.

The local business owner understands this better than most politicians. He lives in the real world. He knows he cannot mandate a profit into existence. He cannot raise wages beyond what the business can sustain. He cannot sell a product for less than it costs to produce. He cannot keep the doors open by pretending arithmetic is unfair.

Labor matters. Employees matter. Good workers are valuable. But wages have to fit inside the value customers are willing to pay for the product or service. Government can mandate a wage, but it cannot mandate customer demand. It can raise the cost of labor, but it cannot force customers to buy a sixteen-dollar hamburger.

When no one applies for a job at ten dollars an hour, the market is speaking. The employer must raise the wage, improve conditions, change the work, or go without help. That is a market signal. But when government imposes wages without knowing the margins, the customer base, the cost structure, or the survival point of the business, it is not wisdom. It is political theater with someone else’s money.

And when the business fails, the politician does not lose the house. The owner does.

That is another truth our culture forgets: ownership is risk. Employees sell labor for wages. Owners buy risk with their lives.

The owner signs the lease, borrows the money, buys the equipment, hires the staff, pays the insurance, manages the taxes, satisfies the regulators, and lies awake wondering whether payroll can be met. If the business succeeds, people complain that the owner made too much. If the business fails, the owner absorbs the loss.

Employees may lose a job. That is serious. But the owner may lose the business, the savings, the house, the credit, the reputation, and years of work.

A society that resents reward while depending on risk-takers is living off capital it no longer understands.

There has to be the possibility of great reward because there is the possibility of great loss. If the upside is capped while the downside remains unlimited, rational people stop taking risks. They stop opening restaurants. They stop building companies. They stop hiring workers. They stop signing notes. They stop betting on themselves.

Then everyone has less.

That is why defending capitalism is not about defending billionaires. It is about defending the right of ordinary people to create, build, risk, serve, profit, fail, recover, and try again.

It is about defending the system that allows a poor person to become middle class, a middle-class person to become wealthy, and an idea in a garage to become a company that changes the world.

The tragedy of our time is that too many people have been taught to envy the builder rather than become one. They have been taught to look at wealth and assume theft. They have been taught to see profit as exploitation rather than the oxygen that keeps a business alive.

They see capitalism’s storefront.

They do not see government’s machinery behind the wall.

So when prices rise, they blame the merchant. When rent rises, they blame the landlord. When wages disappoint, they blame the employer. When billionaires exist, they blame capitalism.

But the deeper causes are debt, inflation, regulation, taxation, artificial scarcity, distorted incentives, and government interference in the capitalist system.

Capitalism is not perfect because people are not perfect. But capitalism remains the greatest engine of abundance, innovation, opportunity, and upward mobility the world has ever known.

Government can provide order, courts, national defense, basic rules, and protection against fraud and force. But when government tries to manage everything, price everything, subsidize everything, regulate everything, and promise everything, it corrupts the signals that make markets work.

Capitalism is the engine.

Government is the road, the fuel, the speed limit, the toll booth, the traffic cop, and sometimes the guy throwing nails in the lane.

When the ride gets rough, people blame the engine.

They should look at the road.

March 30, 2026

The Oath We Take… and the One We Keep

by Steve Dana

There was a time when an oath meant something.  Not just the words. Not just the ceremony.  The weight of it.

You stood, you raised your right hand, and you spoke words that bound you—not only to the people in front of you, but to something higher. Whether you were a man of deep faith or simply a person of conscience, you understood that you had crossed a line. You were no longer just a private citizen. You had made a commitment. And that commitment came with expectations.

I remember taking that oath.  More than once.

Different terms. Different seasons of life. But the same words. The same promise: to faithfully execute the duties of the office, to support and defend the Constitution, and yes—for many of us—to do so “so help me God.”

That last phrase mattered to me. It wasn’t filler. It wasn’t tradition for tradition’s sake. It was a reminder that my word was not just given—it was witnessed.

And that changes a person.  Or at least, it used to.

Today, I find myself asking a simple question: what exactly does an oath mean anymore?  Because in our public life, we have become very good at requiring the oath… and not nearly as good at expecting anything from it.

In the biblical sense, an oath was never casual. It was a covenant. You did not invoke God’s name lightly, because to do so falsely was to place yourself under judgment. Your word was your bond, and your bond was tied to your standing before God. That kind of thinking produces a certain kind of person—careful, deliberate, aware that promises are not tools but commitments.

Our Bible Study Fellowship group is studying the book of Nehemiah chapter 10 this week.  I was struck by the seriousness of the Jews as they swore an oath to God accompanied by a penalty for failing to honor the oath. 

In Nehemiah 10 verse “29 all these now join their fellow Israelites the nobles, and bind themselves with a curse and an oath to follow the Law of God given through Moses the servant of God and to obey carefully all the commands, regulations and decrees of the Lord our Lord.”

It was that penalty part that got my attention.  We do solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury as it says when you sit as a witness in a legal proceeding.  Under penalty of criminal indictment.

What happened to that penalty part with our elected officials?

Over time, that part faded right off the paper.

In our constitutional system, the oath became less about a covenant with God and more about a commitment to a framework—the rule of law, the Constitution, the structure of government itself. That was not a step down. It was, in many ways, a step toward unity in a diverse nation. You didn’t have to share the same theology, but you did have to agree on the same foundation.

Fair enough.  But something subtle happened along the way.  We kept the words, but we lost the weight.

Today, an oath of office is required before an official can assume power. Refuse to take it, and you don’t get the job. The system is very clear about that. No oath, no authority. The line is sharp, and it is enforced.

But once the oath is taken?  That’s where things get… flexible.

If you are testifying in a trial, lying will get you in jail.  If you are a politician, lying will get you re-elected.

There is no law that says, “You have violated your oath, therefore you are guilty.” Instead, we rely on a patchwork of enforcement—criminal law if a statute is broken, impeachment if political will exists, elections if voters are paying attention. The oath itself becomes more of a reference point than a standard of judgment.

And so we arrive at a strange place.

An elected official can stand before the public, swear to uphold the Constitution, and then—through action or inaction—ignore, reinterpret, or selectively apply it in ways that would have once been unthinkable. As long as those actions fall within the gray areas of law or politics, the oath itself offers no direct consequence.

The promise is made.  The accountability is optional.

Now, to be fair, we live in a complex society. Not every disagreement is a violation. Not every policy choice is a betrayal. Reasonable people can—and should—debate how best to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country.

But that’s not what troubles me.  What troubles me is something deeper.

It’s the growing sense that the oath has become a formality rather than a boundary. That it is something we say to gain office, not something we carry once we have it. That the words are recited, but not necessarily believed.

And that brings us back to the heart of the matter.

An oath is only as strong as the person taking it.

If a man believes he is accountable—to God, to the law, to his own conscience—then the oath has force. It shapes his decisions. It restrains him when it should. It guides him when the path is unclear.

But if he believes he is accountable only to circumstance, or power, or convenience… then the oath becomes little more than a step in the process. A box to check. A sentence to recite.

We have built a system that insists upon the taking of the oath.  But have we built a culture that insists upon keeping it?  That’s a harder question.

Because laws can only do so much. Courts can only reach so far. Elections, as important as they are, come long after the decisions have been made. In the end, the strength of an oath rests not in the enforcement mechanism, but in the character of the one who speaks it.

That may not be a satisfying answer in an age that looks for systems to solve every problem. But it is an honest one.

We cannot legislate integrity.  We can only expect it.  And that expectation begins with us.

If we, as citizens, treat the oath as ceremonial, we should not be surprised when those we elect do the same. If we reward results over principles, power over fidelity, outcomes over process, then the oath will continue to fade into the background.

But if we begin to ask different questions—if we begin to look not just at what our elected officials promise, but how they govern once in office—then perhaps the oath can recover some of its meaning.

Not because it is enforced more harshly.  But because it is taken more seriously.

So here is the question we ought to be asking ourselves:  “When an elected official raises their hand and swears to support and defend the Constitution… do we expect them to live that oath?”

Or have we become comfortable with simply hearing them say it?

Because the answer to that question may tell us less about our leaders… and more about us.