Political Effects of Puerto Rican Statehood

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the results of Puerto Rico’s latest statehood referendum, and how residents of the island should have the final say on whether or not they become the fifty-first state. It was outside the scope of that post to discuss the effects that a bid for statehood would have on national politics, but I wanted to briefly address some of those political considerations here.

The greatest effect that Puerto Rican statehood would have on national politics would be in two areas—Congressional representation and the number of votes in the Electoral College. The population of the island, which currently stands at a little over 3.4 million according to the latest Census Bureau estimates, would presumably entitle the hypothetical state to either four or five U.S. representatives (when all states are ranked by population, Puerto Rico lands between Iowa, with four representatives, and Connecticut, with five). It would also receive two U.S. senators and, depending on the exact size of its congressional delegation, either six or seven electoral votes.

The most immediate result of statehood would be the reallocation of congressional seats. Whereas there is no statutory limit on the total membership of the U.S. Senate (or, for that matter, the number of votes in the Electoral College, which currently stands at 538), there is currently a cap on voting members of the House, set at 435. Unless Congress decided to raise that limit, or do away with it altogether (which wouldn’t be advisable, for practical reasons), several states would automatically lose a member of Congress to make way for Puerto Rico. As noted by the author of the Hill article linked above, the states most at risk, based on the 2010 redistricting process, would be California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington.

Of course, which specific districts in those states would be consolidated, and how the maps would be redrawn, would be anyone’s guess until the process actually occurred. But it is a certainty that none of those states would take the prospect of losing congressional representation particularly well.

The partisan makeup of the new state’s congressional delegation—as well as the island’s partisan tendencies in presidential elections—would be the other major question with regard to the political effects of statehood. Here as well, those effects are difficult to predict. Puerto Ricans in the United States are known for their tendency to vote Democratic, but island politics are more often based around local parties such as the PNP and PPD. Many politicians also choose to affiliate themselves with the mainline Democratic and Republican parties, and based on this Democrats would start out with a significant advantage in island-wide elections, as well as in many of the new congressional districts (currently, the governor and all three nonvoting representatives in Congress are Democrats). But several Republican-affiliated candidates have also found success in recent years, at both the gubernatorial level and in races for the several at-large seats in the legislature, indicating that the island would couldn’t be counted on to vote as a heavily partisan block.

In short, none of the very real effects of admitting Puerto Rico as the fifty-first state can be known for sure, until that day comes (if it ever does). But two things are a certainty: the substantive impact on national politics will be both noticeable and permanent, and that impact will be sure to become a key factor in any debate over the formal admittance of Puerto Rico into the Union.

Policy Spotlight: Redistricting

The political gerrymandering of congressional districts has been in the news in a big way recently, as the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear arguments in a case concerning whether Wisconsin’s legislative map unconstitutionally deprives Democratic voters of equal representation, dividing them into various majority-Republican districts and weakening their clout in federal elections.

National Democrats are understandably hoping that a Supreme Court decision holding that Democratic voters have been disenfranchised will lead to Republican-drawn congressional maps across the country being overturned and redrawn. If that were to happen in time for the 2018 elections, Democrats could then become more competitive in congressional races across the country, increasing their chances of retaking a majority in the House without having to do the heavy lifting of campaigning for votes or convincing the voters to support their policy goals.

But some state Democrats in liberal strongholds are hoping for a different outcome. Nationwide, the vast majority of state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, meaning that arguments against gerrymandering are more likely to affect maps favorable to the GOP. But in states such as Maryland, the reverse is true, with blatantly partisan maps serving to shut out Republican candidates for congressional seats. If you thought the Wisconsin district map was gerrymandered, take a look at the Maryland map adopted by state Democrats.

It is obvious, and should be expected, that partisan state legislatures will attempt to draw maps favorable to one political party over the other. Neither party is inherently more honest on the subject, which is why an alternative to the partisan maps must be found and adopted across the country. A few states use independent commissions to redraw congressional boundaries after each census, but since both parties are reluctant to give up one of the great benefits of controlling state legislatures, the practice is far from widespread. Another possibility would be an automatic referendum on proposed maps, which would in theory encourage legislatures to keep the influence of partisan politics to a minimum.

Whatever the answer, it is clear that something must change in how we draw congressional boundaries. What should be a nonpartisan and fairly technical task has become increasingly infused with the worst of party politics, and both sides bear some responsibility.

On The Push For Paid Sick Leave

Democrats, nearly as powerless in Washington these days as conservatives, have taken to pushing their liberal agenda in the few remaining states over which they still have some control. One of the more recent examples of this trend is the renewed push for state-level requirements for paid sick leave in several states, including Maryland.

The issue of requiring employers to provide sick leave is one of many which can be hard to understand for many voters not reflexively opposed to government intervention. On this issue, among others, the Democrats have done a good job of portraying themselves as the defenders of the working class, thereby casting Republicans as only concerned with helping big business. The narrative is compelling and can be hard to break.

But requiring employers to provide paid sick leave is a manifestly bad idea. This extends from broader arguments about liberty and the role of government in the private sector economy, to the point that requiring paid sick leave is simply bad policy. Like proposals to increase the minimum wage, it hurts employers of all stripes, particularly small businesses, and ultimately hurts the very employees Democrats claim to be trying to help.

By requiring paid sick leave or other benefits, Democrats would force small businesses to expend greater resources for the same number of employees. Ultimately, those businesses would be forced to choose one of two options, in order to absorb rising costs: lay off some employees, or pass the added costs on to the consumer—or both. In the first scenario, employees, many of whom are likely low-income workers, would lose their jobs. In the second, everyone who patronizes a particular business would be forced to pay more—likely including at least a few workers who lost their jobs due to the same policy of mandatory paid sick leave.

When the government attempts to mandate employee benefits, whether in the form of an elevated minimum wage, paid sick leave, or the employer mandate in Obamacare, it is ultimately small businesses and workers who must pay for it. Higher wages and paid leave are great—but let businesses reach those decisions on their own, with the help of natural market forces and without government interference.

In Support of an Independent Kurdistan

The ethnic Kurdish minority in Iraq has long been both one of the most neglected as scorned factions in the country, and one of the most steadfast American allies in the Middle East. No friends of Saddam Hussein after years of mistreatment and attempted suppression by the main Iraqi government, the Kurds aided coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and more recently have proven invaluable in driving back the forces of ISIS in northern Iraq.

But for all their help, the Kurds are somewhat limited by diplomatic constraints. Kurdistan is an autonomous region within Iraq, and though in practice they have wide latitude in conducting their own internal affairs, they are still ultimately answerable to Baghdad, holding none of the benefits of true independence. They cannot formally represent themselves on the world stage, and are therefore needlessly reliant on other countries.

There is also little doubt that the Kurds as a group have long desired an independent country to call their own. The borders of the modern Iraqi state were drawn in the aftermath of World War One by the League of Nations, with little to no input from native Iraqis. As such, the current borders do not necessarily represent the needs or desires of the Iraqi people, whether Kurd, Shia, or Sunni.

The Kurdish people have been loyal American allies who want a country to call their own. The United States should act as a mediator between the Kurdish regional government and the main Iraqi government in Baghdad to help them achieve that goal. If successful, Kurdistan, the United States, and Iraq, along with the elusive goal of Middle Eastern peace, would benefit.

Lasting Peace In Israel: The Ultimate Deal

So far, and largely in keeping with the premise of his “America First” campaign, the Trump presidency has been focused on domestic issues. Foreign policy has of course played a significant role—no president can focus exclusively on one or the other—but apart from military decisions in Syria (which Trump has for the most part outsourced to the Pentagon), crisis-management responses to the latest provocations of North Korea, and some antagonistic dealings with NATO and the G-7, domestic policy has been the centerpiece of the administration to this point. Foreign dealings have focused on a direct relationship to core American interests.

But I fully expect the administration to take on a more active role in world affairs, for the simple reason that America is still the most powerful nation and will inevitably be drawn into any major international dispute. And in the most well-known international dispute in modern times—the ongoing clashes between Israel and the Palestinians—expect Trump to get personally involved and make a strong push for a successful resolution. Contingent, as always, on domestic politics, I think Trump will be unable to resist making an Israeli-Palestinian deal a major focal point of his presidency.

For the man who campaigned on making deals, the author of The Art of the Deal who blasted “stupid politicians” making “bad deals”, the chance to solve the centerpoint of so much violence in the Middle East will be nearly impossible to resist. It would be the ultimate chance to prove himself on the world stage.

Whether anything would come of the negotiations is a different matter entirely. U.S. presidents have been trying for decades, with no permanent, satisfactory resolution to show for it. But, again contingent on the realities of domestic politics, look for Trump to make a significant push on the issue, perhaps after the midterms next year.

It is hard to imagine a man with the ego and love of deal-making such as Trump, given the power and influence of the office of the American Presidency, attempting anything less.

Summer In Trump's Washington

Summers in Washington, D.C. are hot and humid. Particularly in August, it becomes easy to remember that two centuries ago, the city was literally built in a swamp, which was drained to make way for the new capital. Donald Trump’s campaign cry, perhaps unwittingly, mirrors the call of late eighteenth-century construction workers.

Heat and humidity can make people both lazy and irritable, and it seems like that is shaping up to be a perfect reflection of the mood inside D.C., as the first summer of the presidency of Donald Trump slowly progresses. Lazy, in that nothing much continues to happen in terms of fulfilling major campaign promises such as Obamacare repeal and tax reform. And irritable, in the sense of continuing investigations into collusion with the Russians (some justified, to be sure), and marches of “the Resistance.”

Something major could always change, just as the heat and humidity can give way to sudden thunderstorms and flash floods, but as of now it seems unlikely. The status quo will probably continue through the summer, with much sniping and little being accomplished. Such is the standard in modern Washington, and this summer looks set to exacerbate the trend.

While Washington Squabbles, The States Move Forward

Republicans have held unified control of the federal government for over five months now. In that time, the only real legislative victories have been several resolutions passed under the Congressional Review Act, revoking various executive-branch regulations imposed by the Obama administration—important work, to be sure, but not exactly the stuff of a grand conservative revival. We now have only a year and a half until the 2018 midterms, after which continued Republican control of Congress is by no means guaranteed. And, of course, the closer the election, the less likely any sort of bold reform will be advanced.

But in the states—long ignored by a press far more interested by the high-level drama in the capital—reforms are happening at a much faster rate. Texas, for instance, approved a law banning sanctuary cities in the state. New Hampshire earlier this year legalized “constitutional carry”, making it easier for gun owners to exercise their constitutional rights.

On the other side of the liberal-conservative divide, California continues to take steps toward implementing a statewide single-payer healthcare system, and several blue states, with diminished clout in Washington, are rediscovering the eternal wonders of federalism.

As always, big things are happening in the states, away from the glare of the national media spotlight. It would be a mistake to forget that the “laboratories of democracy” still hold significant power and influence, even after decades of assaults from Washington.

Is Shrinking The Government A Lost Cause?

The modern expansion of the federal government has been proceeding in fits and starts, since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930’s. Some presidents—and it has nearly always taken presidential action to successfully resist the encroachment of government—have been more successful at slowing the growth of government than others. But it seems as if none, in the eighty years since Roosevelt took office, have been able to reverse this expansion. Ronald Reagan was a particularly successful conservative president, but even he on managed to slow the tide. The Department of Education, newly formed under Jimmy Carter, survives to this day. In recent years, conservatives hoped that unified Republican control of government would bring a full repeal of Obamacare, marking the first time in American history that an entitlement program had been successfully rolled back after its enactment. But now, even a partial repeal faces an uphill battle in Congress.

It’s enough to make any conservative give up on politics in anger and despair. It’s a depressing thought, that even though we can still win some isolated victories at the state and federal level, the march of liberal ideas could inexorably continue through Congress and the general public. But there are a couple of positive thoughts that should be remembered, as well.

First, fighting to reduce the size of government is simply the right thing to do. It helps to ensure the security and freedom of all American citizens, both present and future. On that basis alone, the fight should never be abandoned, because the stakes are too great.

And second, if the past few years have taught us anything, it is that no one can possibly imagine what the future will bring. Today’s setbacks become tomorrow’s opportunities, and there is no single “arc of history” bending toward a predetermined endpoint, as much as Barack Obama would like us to believe otherwise. The odds of a large-scale rolling back of the federal government, and restoration of the Constitution, may seem bleak at times, but neither success nor defeat is ever guaranteed. It is up to conservatives to make sure that no chance at liberty is ever wasted, and remember that no victory, however small, is worthless.

Puerto Rico Needs To Make Up Its Mind

This past Sunday, Puerto Ricans went to the polls to vote in a referendum on whether the island—currently a U.S. territory, should become an independent nation or the 51^st state in the Union. Ninety-seven percent of voters in Sunday’s referendum favored statehood, as does the current governor—but turnout was low, due to a boycott of the vote by several opposition groups, so the importance of that 97% figure is open to interpretation, to say the least.

There are strong arguments on both sides of the independence versus statehood question—arguments of culture and identity, economic well-being, and political representation, as well as the electoral effects of admitting a new state for the first time in over half a century (the addition of Puerto Rico as a state would require the addition of two U.S. Senators, the redistribution of five House seats, and a new block of seven votes in the Electoral College). At some point I’ll look at how these changes would affect national politics. For now, however, I’ll content myself with saying that it should be the citizens of Puerto Rico themselves that make a final determination—and stick with it.

The island has held five separate statehood referendums over the past few decades, two in just the last five years. There seem to be legitimate questions about whether the most recent vote was an accurate representation of the will of Puerto Ricans (how often does any election see 97% of the voting populace agree on something?), but the multiple, nonbinding votes are becoming a waste of both time and money on an island currently struggling with massive debt.

What Puerto Rico should do is have a final, binding referendum, supported by all of the various political factions and free of the taint of any large-scale boycott efforts. The leadership of the island should agree that whatever the outcome of this final referendum—statehood, independence, or the status quo—it will be presented as the unified voice of Puerto Rico. If the consensus is a request for statehood or independence, Congress may then begin to take formal action. But either way, the question should not be endlessly litigated. Whatever the decision of the people may be, they need to be allowed to come to a final consensus, so that political leaders can focus on the island’s numerous other pressing issues.

D.C. Shooting Shows Just How Dangerous The Political Climate Has Become

According to the latest reports, the shooter who injured several people at a Congressional baseball practice yesterday, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, was obsessed with the idea that Donald Trump, along with the Republican Party, was working to undermine American democracy and posed an existential threat to the future of the nation.

If that sort of reasoning sounds familiar, it’s because themes like that—painting Trump as an “illegitimate president” who must be removed from office, by any means necessary—have been a major part of “the Resistance” since Inauguration Day.

To be honest, it is a miracle that more attacks like the one yesterday have not occurred more frequently in recent years, as polarization and political anger has reached a fever pitch. The last national political figure to be targeted in such a manner was Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in 2011. Before that, to my knowledge, it had been several decades since a federal officeholder had been injured or killed in an act of political violence. Thinking about all of the overheated rhetoric of just the past few months, culminating most recently in the Kathy Griffin controversy and the staging of a modern interpretation of the play Julius Caesar, which featured the assassination of a Trump lookalike, not to mention the numerous threats on the lives of various members of Congress, it is remarkable that actual violence against public servants, of the sort that occurred yesterday, is still so rare.

Hopefully, if nothing else, this episode will serve as a wakeup call for those who traffic in such perverse acts as mock assassinations and rationalizations of political violence, that their actions can have consequences. May Steve Scalise and the others injured be the last to pay this price.

Policy Spotlight: Eminent Domain

As one of a number of important issues that nevertheless get little of the attention they deserve, the subject of eminent domain has long been one of the most neglected subjects in political debates. Yet for all of its relative obscurity, the issue is one which could most directly affect the average voter, as it governs under what circumstances the government is able to seize private property for public use (with "just compensation" to the owner), a power necessary to some degree for the smooth functioning of any government, but one that could be easily abused.

The most recent major Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain was handed down in the 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision, which dealt with the federal power of eminent domain (governed under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment). A key distinction and argument over the precise meaning of the Takings Clause gained prominence through the Kelo decision: what constitutes "public use"? A valid exercise of eminent domain has always been understood to encompass infrastructure projects such as highways and other public works, but whether the power could constitutionally be used by the government to take property which would then be turned over to private developers is another question entirely. Does a shopping mall—or, as was at issue in Kelo, a pharmaceutical research facility—satisfy the definition of "public use", since it would provide goods and services to the public and create jobs; or would it not, since the property would still be privately owned, use of a shopping mall is much more voluntary than of a highway, and unlike highways, a mall is sustained entirely through the private transactions of voluntary customers?

In the Kelo decision, the debate over what truly constitutes public use or property split into rival liberal and conservative opinions. Four conservative justices—Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who had authored a previous liberal eminent domain opinion for the Court—argued that it was unlawful for the government to exercise the power of eminent domain only to then turn the property over for private use. Meanwhile, Anthony Kennedy joined with the Court's four liberals in the majority opinion, authored by John Paul Stevens, holding such an exercise of eminent domain to be constitutional.

Since 2005, the Court has heard only one case of any significance regarding the Takings Clause, a decision last year which dealt with what could properly be considered "just compensation", but since the Kelo decision, the primary argument in conservative legal circles has continued to center around the proper definition of "public use". A major future conservative victory on the Court, which would nonetheless probably go unnoticed by the vast majority of the public, would be to one day overturn the Kelo decision—limiting governmental power to more closely mirror the precise wording and intent of the Fifth Amendment. It would not be an exaggeration to argue that such a victory would be overshadowed only by the overturning of Roe v. Wade in substance and long-term impact, and as with that decision, opposition to Kelo should be an aspect of every potential Supreme Court nominee's overarching judicial philosophy.

Entertainment Needs More Downward Dog

There is a problem in this country, a growing, festering problem that too many people are content to ignore. A problem that should be obvious to everyone who opens a magazine or newspaper, or turns on the TV at night. It is the problem of the remake, the reboot, and the reimagining of old ideas in modern entertainment, and if this problem isn’t addressed now, it will continue to grow and haunt future generations. Is that really the legacy we want to leave our children?

Now, don’t get me wrong—I like sequels, properly executed. The new Star Wars movies? Loved them. The fifth Pirates of the Caribbean movie? Loved that too, although based on reviews I may be alone in that regard. True, well-developed sequels (and prequels) are a magnificent chance to revisit favorite characters in new settings.

But it is a truism that too much of even a good thing can be bad for you. Too much water can kill a person. Too much incessant scrolling through Trump’s Twitter feed can drive someone mad. And too many sequels, appearing at the same time, can sap the entertainment industry of creativity and original thought, thereby inflicting the same harm on the culture at large.

The movie industry is the most obvious example of this phenomenon—witness the innumerable superhero movies (there have been three Spider-Man reboots—not movies, mind you, but film reboots of the character—since 2002), as well as the adaptations of young adult novels that all eventually seem to merge together in the public consciousness. But it is seeping into television, as well, with superheroes again being the prime example.

Which makes the new ABC show Downward Dog such a breath of fresh air. I haven’t seen it, so I’m not commenting on the quality of the show itself. But the premise alone—a talking dog commenting on his owner’s life—is radically different from anything that has been tried in recent years. No Flash or Batman in sight.

We don’t just need more talking animals to make entertainment better and more original (although it would be literally impossible to hate a talking animal of any sort). But what we do need is more fresh, original ideas to compete with the endless reboots and adaptations currently gutting the marketplace. Sad is it may be, more original ideas in storytelling may just inspire more people in the population at large to come up with their own ideas, and start thinking for themselves.

Some Thoughts On The British Elections

As I write this, with the returns of yesterday’s parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom all but finalized, it appears certain that the ruling Conservative Party has fallen short of an outright majority, thereby forcing a coalition government with one of the several minor parties in Britain. I have a few thoughts on the results, and what they mean for Britain, the European Union, and the United States going forward:

First, the results, coupled with the overall election process, seem to highlight a simple fact of modern democratic governments—parliamentary systems are inherently less stable, and are less suited to leading strong national governments on the world stage, than more structured democratic systems such as in the United States. In America, a pattern of regularly scheduled elections, coupled with the historical irrelevance of any third parties, make for a more predictable and organized political system—even when, as in 2016, the ultimate outcome of those elections is unexpected. In Britain and other countries with parliamentary systems, meanwhile, elections can be called at any time (with a few limits on frequency), and complicated coalition governments are common. These arrangements often lead to weaker and more transient governments than are common in the United States and some other countries—yesterday’s election results being a prime example of that fact.

Unsurprisingly, the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, no longer holds even a single seat in Parliament, a dramatic reversal from the growing influence of the party just two years ago. The reason is simple: Brexit was the party’s single animating feature, the part of its platform that differentiated it from all others. Now that Brexit has been achieved, and the only real debate among the parties centers on the precise terms of Britain leaving the European Union, UKIP has been robbed of that which made it special. A similar phenomenon is often seen in American politics, where a single-issue minor party will enjoy some short-lived success based on the strength of one particular argument, but will quickly disappear once one or both of the major parties co-opt that argument, or the issue itself fades in relevance.

And finally, the results themselves will likely not affect American foreign policy in any meaningful way, at least in the short term. Britain will still withdraw from the European Union, although the negotiation process has just become more difficult for them. The Conservative Party is still the dominant political party in the U.K., although likewise their hand has been weakened. It would have been nice to see a right-wing party enjoy some success across the pond, but direct repercussions from yesterday’s results will probably be limited.

Still, what those results do show is the fickleness of voters in any democracy, the foolishness of declaring a political opponent to be finished, and the dangers of being seen as not delivering substantive reform. That may be the most important lesson for Americans, and the Republican Party in particular.

Maryland Democrats Admit To Disenfranchising Republicans

Out of Maryland comes a rare case of politicians being completely honest about their intentions—to get more members of their own party elected to office, at the expense of disenfranchising voters with whom they disagree.

Several leading Democrats in the state, including former governor Martin O’Malley and speaker of the House of Delegates Mike Busch, gave sworn depositions in relation to a lawsuit alleging that the state’s 2011 redistricting was designed specifically to maximize Democratic representation in the state’s congressional delegation, while minimizing the influence of Republican voters. Taking even a brief look at the current boundaries of Maryland’s congressional districts, it is impossible to see how anything else could be the case—and now, those in charge of the redistricting process have admitted that fact.

The current lawsuit focuses on the Sixth Congressional District in western Maryland, which was gerrymandered to elect a Democrat in what would normally be a deep red area of the state. But what goes largely unmentioned in the current media coverage is that the entirety of the Maryland congressional map was twisted in a blatant display of partisanship, to elect as many Democrats to Congress as possible.

Without a doubt, the region most harmed by the current map is Anne Arundel County, in the center of the state. The county, home to such major drivers of job creation as the state capital, BWI international airport, NSA headquarters, and Fort Meade army base, is split into no less than four separate Congressional districts, and not a single congressman calls Anne Arundel home.

The reason is simple: the county in general leans Republican, with a large number of voters identifying as Independent, and if it were contained within a single district, any Democrat running for office could not be guaranteed success.

Hopefully, the court will recognize what those of us who live and vote in Maryland have long known to be true—that the entire congressional map was created to serve the political interests of a single party, and to ensure citizens' equal representation, the process of drawing congressional boundaries in the state must start from scratch.

White House Drama Would Be Fine If It Actually Got Results

There are reports that Reince Priebus, former chair of the Republican National Committee and currently Donald Trump’s chief of staff, may be on his way out. This follows months of maneuvering and jockeying for power among the upper levels of Trump’s White House staff, which in turn followed the well-documented power struggles within the staff of Trump’s presidential campaign.

Many have argued that this behavior, implicitly encouraged by Trump, is no way to run a country. But it wouldn’t be so bad if it actually got results. If the Trump administration at this point, more than one hundred days in, was an unqualified success, if Obamacare repeal had passed Congress and tax reform was on its way to becoming law, then the power plays and shifting allegiances would be a worthy price for getting results. But the fact is that those goals are nowhere close to being met, and it seems improbable that the current mode of administration is particularly well-suited to meeting them in the near future.

The current system simply isn’t working. The White House needs to get rid of the infighting, build a team consensus, and get to work.

Build That Wall

Unlike many other Trump critics during the 2016 primary and general election seasons, I was never opposed in principle to the idea of a wall along the southern border. Trump’s presentation of the idea was ridiculous, to be sure, as was his suggestion that Mexico would pay for it. But the concept of a wall itself was a good one, for both practical and psychological reasons. There can be no doubt that the border was far from secure during Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House, and though things have improved somewhat since then, much work remains.

But Trump’s spotty record of keeping his promises and staying consistent on the issues, from his professional life to his public political statements, made it seem at the time that his pledge to build a wall would likely be quickly forgotten, should he ever achieve the presidency. There was no evidence that Trump, beneath all his bluster, had the ability to fight both the Democrats and the bipartisan caucus of limitless-immigration advocates in Washington, to the point necessary to change the border situation to any meaningful degree.

That situation has improved, to be sure, more than we had reason to hope. But that improvement is only temporary, unless the Trump administration can find a way to make a large-scale, tangible, and permanent change at the southern border. Something big and beautiful, maybe.

The wall seems to have faded in priority within the Trump administration. Aside from it being politically stupid for the administration to let such a major campaign promise go unfulfilled, it would be a border enforcement measure that future administrations would find next to impossible to reverse. It needn’t stretch along the entire border, either—just an added, highly visible security measure along the most troublesome portions. But it would send a clear message to all those who seek to enter the country illegally: America is a country of law and order.

Trump Withdraws From The Paris Agreement; Keeps Embassy In Tel Aviv

Yesterday, in typical deal-making mode, President Trump made two major decisions, one certain to please conservatives and the other just as certain to assuage liberals. He announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015; and, earlier in the day, signed a waiver that kept the American embassy in Israel in Tel Aviv, rather than moving it to the Israeli capital in Jerusalem, as he had promised repeatedly during the presidential campaign.

So, one promise kept, another broken. Sounds like a typical day in the presidency of Donald Trump.

I agree with the conservative conventional wisdom that the Paris agreement was a bad deal for the country, and that the embassy should move to Jerusalem immediately. Persuasive arguments for both positions are fairly easy to find, and I won’t rehash them now. But what I find interesting is that the announcements of both decisions occurred on the same day, fitting what has become a pattern for this administration: bad news is regularly paired with good, or, more specifically, the announcement of one policy guaranteed to find favor with those on the Right is always paired with the announcement of another guaranteed to unsettle conservatives.

In general, this isn’t an unusual strategy in politics, or for that matter in any business involved in public relations. But I find it interesting how closely the Trump administration has been keeping to this form of one good thing for the Right, coupled with one bad. Before the Paris withdrawal and the keeping of the embassy in Tel Aviv, it was the (good) federal budget blueprint, coupled with the (bad) push for the American Health Care Act. The pattern even dates back to Trump’s cabinet announcements from the transition period, where one pick that might be greeted unenthusiastically by many Republicans was often announced alongside another guaranteed to excite the base. And there have been many other examples of the same basic pattern over the course of the Trump presidency to date.

So the next time the administration makes an announcement that is cause for celebration, wait to see what the bad news is going to be. Conversely, if there is an announcement of a policy conservatives are guaranteed to disagree with, expect some good news to emerge soon after. On this, at least, the Trump White House seems to operate like clockwork.

One Year of The Conservatory

One year ago today, The Conservatory was launched. It was an interesting time in politics, to say the least. Donald Trump had recently clinched the Republican presidential nomination. Hillary Clinton was in the process of putting away her own party’s nomination, on the brink of defeating Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and was leading Trump in national polls by double digits. Some state-level polls suggested that Trump could be vulnerable in states as reliably Republican as Kansas and South Carolina. And nobody was talking about Russian interference in the election.

How times have changed in the past year. The only thing that hasn’t changed is that the political world is just as strange as a year ago, maybe even stranger. Uncertainty has become the new normal, even more so than in the past.

Another thing that hasn’t changed is The Conservatory. This is still a conservative site, offering conservative opinions on the events of the day. The posts may not always seem consistent—criticizing Trump one day, praising him the next. But that is the nature of the world we live in. When Donald Trump, or the Republican Party, or anyone else does something in line with conservative values, I will praise them. When I disagree, I will make it known. It’s true for every single person on this Earth, that there is only one person you will agree with 100% of the time, and you see that person in the mirror every day.

Thanks to everyone who takes the time to read my thoughts on the events of the day, even if you disagree with every word. May year two of The Conservatory be even better than the first.