Posted on by Nathan Riley

Addiction, Everybody Does It

One of the strangest promises Donald Trump has made is stopping fentanyl. The notion that being mean will stop drugs has never worked.

Freedom Democrats would be familiar with the iron law of prohibition: a more aggressive enforcement brings even more dangerous drugs to the market. When oxycodone was widely available, its safety had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). That many users would experience withdrawal was an unfortunate side effect. That the drug was widely available also meant many persons used it who had received no prescription.

Freedom Democrats believe that the relationship between doctors and patients should be respected, especially by politicians. They have no expertise, and the doctor and the patient should develop their own course of treatment. No drug enforcement agency. No rules about dosage or where the drug’s may be used. That is up to doctors, their patients, and agreements about best medical practices.

Freedom Democrats, had they been in charge, would not have blood on their hands. The politicians who played the blame game are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Lawmakers blamed the pharmaceutical companies for trying to expand their market. In this one sided view, the users had no responsibility; they were simply victims of addiction, had no intelligence, and no will power.

Elected officials accepted the discredited idea that drug users aren’t citizens, have no rights, and are trapped. A nefarious evil captures the user’s soul and deprives them of choice. It’s malarkey; similar ideas have existed for centuries. Witches after all were supposed to exercise control over their victims. Back then, the witches were killed.

Centuries later Democratic and Republican politicians adopted policies that killed the users. They were denied any moral culpability; the drug users were trapped by their “habit.” The politicians dismissed the possibility that drug users were rational and able to control their lives. The way they handled their habit was comparable to the way millions respond to alcohol, food, and caffeine.

The only difference is this group isn’t stigmatized and dehumanized. The effort they put into controlling their habits receives positive reinforcement and often drug treatments.

But the closed-minded lawmakers offered oxycodone users no support; in fact, their one-sided view simply killed hundreds of thousands of users. It should take no brains at all to realize that if a person regularly uses oxycodone you don’t simply say, “You can’t have it. The law says stop.” The law offered habitual users no comfort and legal ways for changing their habits at their own pace. All too often, judges thought it reasonable to tell users you must stop now, a decision that should be made by doctors and their patients.

To nobody’s surprise, Stop Now was a gift to cartels and ingenious people who created alternative illegal supplies. History had repeated itself. Banning marijuana, cocaine, and amphetamines had produced illegal markets. In fact, they offered economic stimulus to criminals, and more work for the police. The criminal justice system will thrive.

Not so the drug users. They were too often conned into believing that a pill was oxycodone when in fact it contained a strong dose of fentanyl. The number of victims of the politician’s callousness soared to over 100,000 a year dead from overdoses. More people died in one year than died in the Vietnam War. Freedom Democrats would damn lawmakers for their callousness and cruelty.

This time the witches didn’t die; it was their victims.

Trump displaying the ignorance that is a trademark simply argued that drugs were reaching America because we weren’t really trying. He slammed tariffs on Mexico.

The iron law of prohibition suggests that fentanyl will be replaced by even more dangerous drugs that kill quickly. That drug has already surfaced—nitazenes. Being mean kills drug users.

The very idea that a societal habit like ribald humor can be banned is a joke. For one thing, and Freedom Democrats are an example of this, there is no agreement that drug use is criminal. Another problem is people make money selling banned substances. Banning alcohol in the 1920’s made many fortunes.

Trump’s effort to try harder in the silly hope that the drug will stop reaching the U.S. doesn’t recognize that law enforcement and drug smugglers all too often find ways to share the wealth. Mexico is famous for its ties between law enforcers and drug cartels. Nothing Trump does will change this reality, but we do know that a new drug is here—nitazene.

Democrats of course join Republicans in chasing the impossible goal of stifling the drug trade.

We are still looking for the charismatic and verbally fluent political leader who will support doctors being able to treat drug users without strangers violating their privacy and setting rules that harm a successful treatment.

Obesity is universally recognized as a major U.S. health problem. Doctors understand that many people eat for pleasure; in other words food acts like a drug. It was my habit and mastering it made my weight drop from 270 to 195 and brought a happier life. Dr. Peter Grinspoon’s book Up in Smoke and website makes sensible arguments for allowing doctors to treat patients who use drugs without outside interference.

He makes the point that using drugs is normal. We refuse to recognize that gambling, eating, and caffeine also have addictive impacts. In my case, my addiction to food started in elementary school. I fit Dr. Grinspoon’s theory that “suffering, often alone, feeling bad about myself, in the shadows” drove my eating and explained why diets did not work.

When I was grossly fat, I used to tell people I was addicted, and it was completely visible. Only a few people recognized that I was speaking about my eating habits. People didn’t associate eating with addiction. Addiction is the all-too-common habit of confronting other problems by repetitive behavior that brings no real relief.

Freedom Democrats recognize that drug use and overeating are sister phenomenon. This humane response is alien to Trump’s angry “stomp it out” mentality. It is one reason why Trump is malicious and cruel.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is Trump a Tyrant?

Trump is making everybody nervous. His latest proposal for a 30-day ceasefire threatens his plans to establish normal relations with Russia.

Russia will only accept a ceasefire if Ukraine demobilizes its armed forces. Putin won’t allow Ukraine to rearm during a ceasefire, and so far he is winning this war. At the same time, Putin would look really bad if he rejected this idea. So Trump is making everybody nervous. Is he destroying the progress he’s made towards normal relations with Russia? Or is he making nice to the vast majority in the United States who damn Russia for invading Ukraine?

His other claim to progress in foreign affairs is the ceasefire between Palestine and Israel continues. But everybody is worried that war will resume any week now. Given the intense hatred between Israel and Palestine, this tension will remain normal.

The two wars conducted when Joe Biden was President horrified me and made me an unenthusiastic Democrat. Trump is doing so badly that he is restoring my enthusiasm for the Democrats.

His attacks on DEI, a desirable Democratic program, have inescapable racist overtones and anti-LGBTQ messages. His promises to dismiss and humiliate women make Trump indefensible. To nobody’s surprise, the President makes rational discussion impossible.

Diversity is a necessary ingredient of Democracy. It makes the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian Americans members of the same community. In this sense, it serves the goal of inclusion—we should all get along. Equity offers all persons in the United States an opportunity to choose their own path.

Trump tears down computer sites offering applications for student loans, making it difficult, if not impossible, for families to pay for higher education. Computer information about filing a complaint is quelled.

It is absurd and embarrassing that in the 21st century the United States is closing its Department of Education. All governments have education offices, and the United States looks screwy to close its department.

Clear signals are being sent that it is okay to hire whites and create obstacles to blacks and Spanish-speaking people. Turning the Civil Rights gains of the 1960’s into partisan programs supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans is a sop to those who accept the weak arguments that blacks and Spanish-speaking people take jobs away from whites. The objective should be finding jobs for everybody.

It is foolish to blame diversity, equity, and inclusion for making wages fall behind rising prices. The public has to make this clear to the political leadership. Prosperity is not full employment; prosperity is full employment if wages keep up with prices.

Trump’s pleasure at squashing DEI programs is too often embarrassing. On March 7th, the Enola Gay was removed from the Defense Department’s website. The word “gay” is a no-no, and Defense Department Secretary Hegseth has banned it from its website. Unhappily, Enola Gay doesn’t mean two guys holding hands; it is the name of the airplane that dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. Like the censors, who try to squelch sexual scenes, banning words leads to foolish embarrassment that makes, in this case, the Defense Department look stupid.

Add it all up, and Trump appears to be volunteering for the role of tyrant. He is tilting at programs that make free speech and divergent political views feasible. He gets furious when his order doesn’t happen. Most adults accept that they only get their way some of the time. It is unclear if Trump has accepted this reality.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Can Diplomacy Bring Peace To Ukraine?

The need for creating Freedom Democrats has never been greater. As this blog is being written, Trump continues his effort to negotiate with Russia on a wide range of issues: nuclear weapons, European boundaries, and creating normal relations between Russia and the United States.

While Trump’s plans for Europe and Russia might end the Cold War relic of deep-seeded Russian-U.S. hostility, the Middle East is deeply troubled. Today (Tuesday, March 4, 2025), a conference of Arab nations starts. On Sunday, Israel cut off aid to the Palestinians as part of a plan to crush Hamas.

The agenda of the Cairo conference was the reconstruction of Gaza. It begins by removing the rubble and unexploded ordinances in the first stage. The next stage would be a massive housing and infrastructure construction program. On the one hand, Israel’s shutoff of aid and demand that Hamas collapse put one set of pressures on the Cairo conference. A second piece of bad news was that the leaders of two of the most powerful Gulf nations— Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Edit: Haaretz reported that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were in fact at the meeting and of course the United States, for the very first time, opened face-to-face discussions with Hamas)—would be no-shows at the Cairo summit. Their absence sowed doubts about unified Arab support for Egypt’s plan. Dark clouds cast an ominous shadow over the Arab conference in Cairo. The ceasefire is in peril.

While Trump preserves the U.S.’s historic ties to Israel, he remains steadfast in his still inchoate plan for peaceful relations with Russia, even if it shatters European unity.

A new group of Republicans are insisting that the proper relationship with Russia is “let’s talk.” Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, used to call Putin “a gangster;” now he supports Trump’s plan. Another Republican who is changing his position is South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Senator Mike Lee from Utah is backing this dovish turn, as is Congressmember Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. Rand Paul, a Kentucky senator, is gleefully supporting this shift in U.S. policy.

This change among U.S. leaders means they are abandoning the good guy (democracy) bad guy (authoritarian) view of international relations.

Under the Joe Biden administration theory, Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and its right to be a democracy. Russia’s 2022 invasion was lawless aggression by a nation eager to control Europe. Support of Ukraine was making Europe safe for democracy. Russia was never provoked; its dictator was hostile to freedom loving Europe. This Hollywood good guy vs. bad guy worldview is suspect.

The subtext—who is the most powerful nation?—is also being revised. The previous administration believed that Russia overestimated its power and could not stop the good guys (us) from spreading liberal democracy. The CIA and its related agency USAID had demonstrated their real power by ousting Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. He wanted cooperation with Russia. In this U.S. view, Russia was too weak to withstand a challenge from the democratic forces united in NATO. Like a Hollywood movie the good guys would win.

Freedom Democrats should encourage Democratic leaders to support this Trump’s shift towards diplomacy with Russia.

A basic cause of the Ukrainian war is Russia’s conviction that Ukraine is an existential threat. They are not crazy. Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe after Russia. Kyiv’s army is the sixth largest in the world. Its drone fleet is the world’s largest. Anyone looking at a map would see that a hostile Ukraine endangers the city of Moscow. Many Ukrainians hate Russia. One manifestation of this hostility was Ukrainian moves to ban the teaching of Russian. Russia complains that many members of the Ukrainian government are Nazis.

A reminder, there is no entity that enforces international rules. In this situation of near anarchy, this decision that an existential threat exists is decided by one nation in a dispute. Russia believes it is threatened, and it makes the decision.

A bit of history, Russia did more than that. After a friendly Ukrainian government was undermined, Russia invaded in 2014 and captured Crimea and Black Sea ports open all year around. Russia drew a red line, demonstrating it was serious when it said an existential threat existed and proved it by occupying Ukrainian territory.

What happened next is stupidity. A rational response would be okay guys, let us sit down and figure out how we can all get along. The pugnacious response would be to train Ukrainian troops, supply weapons, and provide funds. Even have it join NATO. The good guys would spread democracy and contain the weak Russian dictator and his authoritarian government. This view made war likely.

Eight years later Ukraine got its answer, Russia invaded. An existential threat existed to Russian power and to the Ukrainian government’s survival. The United States and friends imposed sanctions and shutdown diplomatic discussions. The U.S. believed that Russia was isolated and would bend to NATOs power.

Unhappily for the administration and the “friends” of democracy, Russia had allies. North Korea and China supplied funds and weapons. India continued its decades old policy of not taking sides and bought Russian oil that used to go to Europe. Russia was not isolated; it had new allies. Nations that faced Washington’s hostility made common cause with Russia.

Negotiations faltered after the invasion. The Russian generals who failed the test of leading under conditions of real combat were replaced. Russia increased the size of its armed forces, who became battle hardened, perhaps making them the best soldiers in today’s world. Certainly, U.S. troops are not battle tested. Ukraine, the U.S. proxy does the actual fighting. Ukraine lost territory and there is no sign that bombing Russia is intimidating this great power or placing President Putin in a difficult situation.

Far from bringing peace and supporting democracy in Ukraine, the pugnacious response has brought war and made the nation lose territory.

Being a democratic nation does NOT make the U.S. the good guy. It allied with Israel and gave them the means to wage savage war against the Palestinians, stripping Joe Biden and America of its good guy reputation and giving credence to Russian fear of an existential threat from NATO.

Washington’s claim that it was on the side of peace looked hollow with its history of “forever” wars and the combat in West Asia and Ukraine.

Trump’s belief that normal relations with Russia was the best policy looks reasonable and was one of his campaign messages.

Freedom Democrats should find ways to end the proxy war between NATO and Russia. Just because Trump supports it, does not make it a bad idea.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Normal Relations With Russia?

I am not pro Trump, but early indications offer convincing evidence that he is not a clown. His upheaval suggests he wants to change history and put the United States on a new path.

His policies may have their roots in isolationism. I am not a student of U.S. foreign policy, so I have no opinion on this subject, but from the start of this administration Trump challenged U.S. power centers.

The shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development dealt a hammer blow to a CIA operation. To be sure, the agency feeds starving children and stops the spread of disease. Its humanitarian work is praiseworthy, but it is also linked to soft power, a U.S. tactic.

USAID is tied to political demonstrations to oust foreign governments. Leaders were deposed in Tunisia, Yemen and Libya. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak left office in 2011. In 2014 U.S. Foreign policy mavens dreamed that if China crushed the Hong Kong Umbrella Revolution, it would revive the “unfortunate” memories of the massacre in Tiananmen Square. The most extravagant dreamers hoped sympathy demonstrations would leapfrog across China creating general instability.

At the other end of the globe, Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution started in 2013, and by 2014 a new pro-European Union government would become a NATO proxy.  The pro-Russian government was ejected.

The sharp economic contraction following breakup of the Soviet Union, brought USAID into Ukraine in 1992 and by 2022 in addition to programs supporting health and education, 80% of Ukrainian media outlets relied on grants, mostly indirectly, from American sources like USAID. Ukrainian political commentary is funded by U.S. dollars.

Trump’s hostility to USAID is an attack on the deep state, and one of his first actions. A promise made a promise kept. His new Defense Secretary slammed the Military Industrial Complex by insisting on an 8% budget cut.

Musk’s DOGE search for corruption and waste made it difficult for members of Congress to object. DOGE’s demands for personal details is not directed at you or me, but it is certain to make members of Congress cautious. At a U.N. security council vote the United States split with its European allies by refusing to blame Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. This was too much for a few Republican Congressmembers. Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, went on social media and said he was “deeply troubled by the vote,” which had “put us on the same side as Russia and North Korea.”

No Democratic leader would have taken on deep state institutions in this public fashion.

In West Asia, Trump’s personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, pushed Netanyahu into accepting a cease fire. Trump, his Vice-President, and new Defense Secretary challenged the Biden narrative that the Ukrainian invasion was unprovoked aggression by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

Trump will not make Russia an ally, but he will recognize that when Putin came to power Russia was broke and unable to guard its nuclear weapons. 35 years later Russia fought a war with a U.S. proxy, did not run out of weapons, and seized 20% of the disputed territory. Russia has reemerged as a great power, and President Trump is insisting that normal relations be established with Moscow. Putin is no longer an unspeakable dictator. He is President Putin.

It was revealed that under Biden the U.S. had virtually shut down the Russian Embassy in Washingon and ended diplomatic discussions, a mistake Trump quickly corrected. Putin insisted that Zelensky, the Ukrainian President, be excluded from negotiation and Trump refused to turn the Russian condition into a roadblock.

Biden had insisted Ukraine had stopped the Russian military; Trump said Ukraine had all but lost and could not act like a winner.  

Peace discussions over Eastern Europe were only one dramatic change in U.S. policy, the destruction of Gaza ended with Palestinians free to move in their own country and Hamas celebrated as heroes. Hostages were released. The ceasefire is holding, but its future is up in the air.

Trump’s preposterous suggestion that all Palestinians be removed prompted an Arab alliance and the drafting of a $20B plan to start the reconstruction of Gaza. The resumption of war is possible, even likely, but so far the ceasefire has cooled the fighting.

European nations are hesitantly considering negotiations with Russia as the U.S. President relaxes tensions with Moscow.

In a matter of weeks Trump has placed U.S. foreign policy on a new footing and opened the possibility of normal relations with Russia. Trump is not a clown, and he is challenging the deep state institutions that prospered during the Ukraine war while Russia was treated as an enemy.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is The World Heading Towards Catastrophe?

The nightmare of Trump joining Putin in damning Ukrainian President Zelensky signals the end of NATO and the unraveling of a world order, bringing a proliferation of atomic weapons as nations seek protection. Wars will break out all over the world. Concerns like these animate international affairs.

Israel with U.S. support will attack Iran while invading Palestine to remove its population. Russia will come to the aid of Iran, its ally. Taiwan watching the epidemic of violence will seek China’s protection. U.S. troops will converge on this trouble spot deserting South Korea. Japan will be on its own and rearm. Violence will break out with China at its Philippine border, bringing Australia into this international maelstrom.

In West Asia, forcing Palestinians out of their homeland will inflame tensions between Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey will protect its interest in Syria. Europe will unite and form an armed service to protect itself from Russian expansion.

In an optimistic view, there is no necessity for these trouble spots to bring armed conflict.

On Friday Feb 21, in Saudi Arabia a $20 billion Egyptian plan to redevelop Gaza under the supervision of the U.S. will be discussed by a working group preparing for an Arab summit in March. “The Arab proposal, mostly based on an Egyptian plan, involves forming a national Palestinian committee to govern Gaza without Hamas involvement and international participation in reconstruction without displacing Palestinians abroad.” The Arabs believe their 20-billion-dollar contribution will entice Trump while Israel will get a sweetener. Its firms will receive contracts. The Arabs want to prevent the expulsion of Palestinians, a human rights nightmare trumpeted by Netanyahu and Trump. Last week’s genocidal removal of the Palestinians could end with a reasonable solution and the rebirth of Gaza. Israel lowered tensions by publicly considering allowing Palestinians to emigrate voluntarily.

South Korea is getting a new President who may want the U.S. armed forces to leave. Japan may be thrilled and seek the end of U.S. supervision. What looked like a catastrophe might seem like a new beginning for Japan and South Korea. Japan and China share a mutual security interest; they depend on freedom of the seas. Food, fuel and other necessities must be delivered by ship. A pullback of U.S. forces would encourage the two nations to enter into cooperation agreements.

A calamity is not inevitable.

Everybody recognizes that forcing Zelensky out will have international repercussions. It’s possible to oust Zelensky without accepting the controversial view that Ukraine provoked the crisis. During Trump’s first term, Zelensky cooperated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in making the argument that Trump was pro-Russian. The first impeachment of Trump revolved around the Ukraine and Zelensky sided with the Democrats. This political history demands a Trump reprisal against Zelensky.

But the bottom line remains, Putin is winning the war and is under no obligation to make concessions.

As is normal, the future is laced with possibilities, and we may hope that human wit will avoid disaster.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style Part 2

Trump has broken with the Democrats and their devotion to Ukraine. In a perceptive piece, Peter Baker writes “President Trump made clear that the days of isolating Russia are over and suggested that Ukraine was to blame for being invaded.”

Blame is an odd word for the harsh realities of internation relations. In Baker’s reporting the U.S. has in recent years adopted the view that Ukraine is the victim of Russian aggression. It’s a world of good guys and bad guys. Zelinsky is standing up for freedom and self-determination. Putin, “the dictator,” is the invader. Trump’s radical change: accepting Putin’s right to impose Russia’s will on the smaller good guys. A right often exercised by the United States.

Baker is surely right. Millions of Europeans and Americans accept the view that Russia is the invader and also accept the view that the callous Trump doesn’t care.

Trump has started peace negotiations on Ukraine and accepted the Russian agenda that excludes Zelinsky. Baker describes it as a scandal. My view is international relations are not for the faint of heart. A small country like Ukraine shouldn’t pick a fight with a great power like Russia. In fairness to Ukraine, Russia’s great power status was only recently confirmed. But a huge number of Ukrainians understood that provoking Russia was a disaster and fled the country after demonstrations (with CIA help?) ousted the pro-Russian government in 2014.

The war that turned hot in 2022 after the Russian invasion has basically shattered Ukraine while Russia’s industrial base has grown to supply their soldiers and improve their fighting force. It’s an unfair world, but Baker is wrong. The United States are not good guys; they are practitioners of great power politics.

While the Times and many Americans view Russia as the bully and Ukraine as the victim, American weapons and money supported Israel’s campaign against the Palestinians. A campaign so violent that it has provoked an investigation by the International Criminal Court into allegations that Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The rosy view of the U.S. as good guys is propaganda. Even if Ukraine did not cooperate with the CIA and rearm, it still should have seen the necessity of ignoring provocations and preserving a working relationship with their bigger neighbor: Russia. Perhaps a cooperative Ukraine might have avoided the February 2022 invasion.

Trump recognizes Russia’s great power status. Something that Congress and the Democrats resisted. This has had a dramatic effect on Europe, the United States, and Ukraine. The new administration in Washington believes Putin’s agenda is a workable basis for negotiations. The Russian president believes Zelensky’s leadership is illegal under Ukrainian law. Putin wants elections. Normally a U.S. demand.

As a result, Zelensky is excluded from the negotiations and will face demands that he resign. This is a concrete result of Trump’s five-week-old administration. 

At a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels Pete Hegseth, the self-proclaimed warrior, and new Secretary of Defense announced policies that met Russia’s President Vladimir Putin agenda for opening negotiations.

Ukraine would not join NATO, it would cede to Russia provinces conquered during Ukraine’s misguided war against Russia.

Should an international force watch over Ukraine, Hegseth said it would be a “non-NATO Mission.” No countries were named but clearly China, a Russian ally would qualify, ditto for U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. Journalists reported Europe gave the proposal a chilly reception.

Negotiations have started; Hegseth spoke publicly on Wednesday Feb. 12 . Privately Steve Witkoff, Trumps special mediator, was in Moscow. The next day Trump and Putin had a long phone call that Trump called productive.

By Thursday, Hegseth was soothing Congressional critics and U. S. allies. His ideas would be subject to change during negotiations. He wasn’t announcing hard and fast positions. It would be up Trump to decide what “to allow or not allow.”

A possible major event has Putin and Trump holding direct talks in Moscow on May 9 for the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the German surrender to Russia in 1945, when Russia and the United States were allies against Hitler.

The President promised to engage in nuclear talks once “we straighten it all out” in the Middle East and Ukraine. The President is breaking with a costly Biden administration plan to modernize the armed forces. He told reporters, “There’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons…We already have so many you can destroy the world 50 times over.”

Talks about peace in Ukraine started on Feb 18 in Saudi Arabia. Ukraine was not invited. The location was odd for Ukrainian peace talks but a sensible one for involving Egypt in a Palestinian peace process.

At this initial meeting Moscow and Washington agreed to expand their embassy staffs. It would have the practical effect of making it easier for each country to obtain accurate information and permit non-binding discussion of tentative plans.

Perhaps another Putin hope was being realized. According to a Moscow statement, “The two sides expressed their mutual willingness to interact on pressing international issues, including the settlement around Ukraine.” Putin is eager to establish a framework for discussing major issues with the United States.

A neutral Ukraine might model itself after Austria. That country’s founding documents provide that “In all future times Austria will not join any military alliances and will not permit the establishment of any foreign military bases on her territory.”

Posted on by Nathan Riley

What Do I Get For My Taxes?

Ralph Nader is a sharp critic of the Democratic Party. For example, he believes the Party made a fatal mistake when they abandoned most states to the Republicans.

Like many critics, he thinks the D’s dug a hole when they devoted their efforts to impeaching and damning Trump. Sensible voters want to know, “What will you do for me?” Hating Trump does not answer this question.

Nonetheless, Nader remains pragmatic. “We’re sick of not having the government return the benefits of massive taxation to us.”

 “All we hear about is empire abroad. All we hear about is more military budgets.”

His attack on the Defense budget is widely shared among left voters. The attackers wish this agency was a giant piggybank that could pay for programs that voters will love, like the expensive proposition of providing healthcare for all. This view is untested in elections. No candidate besides Nader has pushed it, and when he ran he was damned as a spoiler: a vote for him was viewed as a vote for Republicans. Like most Americans, Nader believes the nation and the party is controlled by wealthy donors. Having good ideas for changing this dominance would be popular and improve Democratic chances.

Good advice, even from an unfriendly source, deserves serious consideration. His test: making the government return the benefits of massive taxation is realistic and a guide for supporting or rejecting Democratic policy ideas.

He clearly lowers the importance of helping the transgendered, people of color, women, and other groups. His criterion is good policy is universal. It can answer the question “What will it do for me?” Using this test, the Democrats top priority should be finding policies that bring benefits to every voter.

The most obvious example is ending the copays and the costs of medical insurance. It’s an ambitious idea, saying that a person seeing a doctor shouldn’t have to reach for their wallet will be expensive. It would require constant political support. European countries regularly limit their medical budgets to keep costs in line. Obviously, that restricts some medical care.

 Such a program may be impossible in the United States, given the opposition to taxation. Countries like Sweden devote 41.4% of their gross domestic product to taxes, in return for free college, free medical care, and comprehensive laws governing vacation time, hours of work. A degree of government supervision that would make most Americans apprehensive.

Nonetheless, Democrats should find ways to reduce the cost of medical care. It is a basic program that voters will greet with approval.

Their recent record is discouraging. Since 2023, Congress has passed laws to bring high-speed internet connections to rural areas and schools. The thought is there, but nothing happens. On January 6, 2025, the new Congress updated the laws and time will tell if the high speed connections are installed. The failure by the Democrats to translate the thought into deeds is a reason why rural states are red and backed Trump.

It should be easy to do. Democrats and Republicans favor the idea. It would be a real-life example to the question, “What do we get for our taxes?” Hopefully, these connections will finally go into effect.

Reviving the Democrats requires actual changes to people’s lives. It is one thing to see the need for improving infrastructure, but voters are clearly correct; they want to know what actually got built. Joe Biden made this a priority, but the Democrats never convinced the public that the construction made the United States better.

Nader’s test showing voters how high taxes improve their lives is pragmatic and sensible. Democrats should adopt this test. Surely, the voter who asks, “I pay all these taxes, what do I get?” deserves more than a pat on the back. He or she should actually see the benefits. Reviving the Democratic Party means doing things, not talking about them.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style

On Friday, Trump’s high tariffs on Canada and Mexico were in effect. On Monday they were gone.

On Tuesday Trump said the Palestinians must leave Gaza, the most extreme demand of Netanyahu’s ultra nationalist coalition. The United States should take over Gaza, he added. Within hours, European and Arab States including Saudi Arabia and Egypt said no way.

Trump had to have been pleased. The most extreme Israeli proposal had been trounced and died without Trump leaving any fingerprints. Indeed, he roped in the most extreme supporters of Israel. The ones most likely to contribute to the Republican Party and most willing to call Democratic doves antisemites were happy. They were convinced that their President Donald Trump was a true friend of Israel, uncontaminated by wishy washy moderates.

The Arab’s rejection presumably was music to Trump’s ear: no American troops would go to West Asia. But Trump was the crazy man who wanted to use American power in Palestine. Democrats’ reaction is still taking shape. They and their friendly media accused Trump of being a mad man, exactly the image he wanted to project.

The other step Trump took offered Iran unspecified goodies if Tehran gave up atomic weapons. A proposal that presumably sits well with the Saudi Arabians. Trump reached this step without looking like a moderate. Netanyahu was neutralized. He was a major endorser of Trump and has damaged, if not destroyed, his relationship with Democrats. Trump’s headline grabbing proposal to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” is actually the opening gambit for the intricate negotiations that could lead to stability.

Bloomberg reported, “US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he’s willing to immediately start working on a new nuclear deal with Iran that allows the country to ‘peacefully grow and prosper,’ seemingly softening his stance on the Islamic Republic.”

In a matter of hours, Netanyahu’s visit had generated a proposal to reduce tension with Iran. An outcome from the first face-to-face meeting between the President and the Israeli leader that nobody predicted. Trump had gotten the better of Netanyahu. Democrats were left sputtering. They don’t support the removal of the Palestinians and consider Trump’s Riviera proposal outlandish. Accusations that usually have the effect of increasing Republican confidence in Trump and making it unlikely in the near future that Democrats will play a constructive role.

There is no mystery to Trump’s method: open with an idea that will be rejected and then move on. Putting Israel in a box might create a stunning success—a cease fire that lasts.

The Democrats project competence as opposed to Trump’s chaos, but they lack Trump’s showmanship. The voters are evenly divided but Democrats should not be fooled with the comforting belief that Trump is crazy and incompetent. It’s safe to say that eventually Democrats will make more specific, even damning, criticisms of Trump’s Middle East policies.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

It Wasn’t The Left, It Was The Party

It may be normal politics to blame the left for failures committed by all the Democrats. But the D’s should spread their net much wider. It was not just the left that made the party appear hapless in 2024.

My roommate, a poet, recently returned from a variety show at a Brooklyn home. A friendly gathering where photographers displayed their work, poets shared their creations, singers jammed, and everyone left with a warm glow—transgendered, gay, lesbian, or whatever choice the guests preferred. Who wouldn’t say “they” if that was the preference of a guest at this gathering. The left will only make modest changes. They are not a majority of the Democratic party, but it would be nearly impossible for this party to become a majority without their support.

In his book “Where have all the Democrats gone” Ruy Teixeira stresses the importance of social gatherings to cement political loyalty. Labor unions offered events and gathering places for years. Union members and their families and friends assumed we are all Democrats. That social cohesion is gone, replaced by the NRA and its social events. The assumption among this working-class group is we are all Republicans.

This is one meaning of the thought that the Democrats have lost the working class. Adding to this gap is the change in union membership. Industrial workers form one group among union membership. Other strong unions represent schoolteachers, government employees, and healthcare workers. Groups who identify as middle-class.

The industrial workers understand that their employers, be they General Motors or U.S. Steel, face stiff competition from foreign companies. They have softened their adversarial posture, recognizing that protecting their industry from overseas competitors requires a different approach. Needless to add, they are thrilled that Donald Trump will erect tariffs to protect their jobs and keep their employers competitive.

Teixeira seeks a revival of Democratic social solidarity with the working class, and he places great faith in a rejuvenated labor movement. His efforts should be encouraged, but he certainly is off base if he relies on blaming the left for causing the D’s problems. The left is here and enjoying its variety shows. It thinks Trump is a buffoon or even dangerous.

My roommate looks stunning in the dresses he frequently wears. His friends and I lavish him with compliments. He will continue to display his creativity. It is improbable that Teixeira’s reproach will have an effect on their lives and preferences.

And it will certainly be true that Kamala Harris would enjoy herself at one of these variety show. The Republicans scored a direct hit with the tag line “Kamala is for ‘they/them.’ President Trump is for you.”

Teixeira worries that the Democratic National Committee will favor the Kamala Harrises, and the NRA will retain its hold on working class. He is absolutely correct that this is a critical question; the tactic he favors, blaming the left for the D’s decline, misses the mark.

It might be the right tactic but it is the wrong analysis.

Roosevelt’s party defeated itself.

From the moment D’s decided to impeach Trump in his first term, they became enamored with anti-Trump hostility. It backfired. Democratic hostility proved to many Americans that Trump will make a difference. According to the Dems, Trump would destroy democracy and the rule of law. In other words, the Dems hostility convinced many that Trump is a genuine change agent. So great was mainstream party leaders’ faith in the electoral appeal of civic virtue that they spent years on venomous attacks.

Attacks that amounted to endorsements for the millions who thought the nation was on the wrong track. Undoubtedly the Dems kept the party united, but they ignored the crucial question: what will the party do to make America better. Trump had an answer. The Dems proudly touted their programs that helped the poor while allowing the nation to be flooded with low-wage workers. Obviously, it did not address the question. As of now, the Democrats still have not projected a program that will generate wage inflation. While Trump devotes most of his time to this popular task.

It was the Dems’ failure to have a popular and unifying program that allowed the trans issue to become a hot-button election issue. Had the Dems something to offer in the way of policy the trans issue would have stayed in the background. The left did not push the issue to the forefront. It was the Republicans. They got away with it because the Dems offered no alternative that engaged the voter.

The Dems are still at Trump’s mercy. They must wait to see if high tariffs raise Americans’ standard of living. Shifting the blame to the left avoids criticizing other wings of the Democratic Party, but it could stifle policies that truly compete with Trump’s.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Give The Doctors A Chance

“To me it makes sense to give fairly wide latitude to the doctors and their patients, as they would know best what helps them and how to integrate cannabis into their care.”

This is the expert opinion of a specialist in addiction treatment who overcame his addiction to heroin and has his own website offering advice for dealing with the good and the bad in marijuana legalization and the use of “harder” drugs. Dr. Peter Grinspoon’s book Seeing through the Smoke: A Cannabis Specialist Untangles the Truth about Marijuana (p. 100) covers the waterfront. It offers an in-depth examination of drug use.

Most of the book is accessible to any reader, but in parts it is intricate. These sections are addressed to physicians in the hopes of creating a dialogue between doctors who look favorably on legalization and other physicians who think this is a dangerous road to travel.

One of his major purposes is to dispel the shame that often sits heavily on the drug user. Another objective is to make physicians aware that patients who use drugs are competent persons who are all too often misdiagnosed and considered driven by uncontrollable compulsions.

As the advice offered at the start of this article, he lays great stress on the doctor-patient relationship, a key proposal of Freedom Democrats. The book lends professional support and wise knowledge to this political objective of making the doctor-patient relationship a private matter.

In his opinion, addiction is a clinical judgment made after a consultation between a doctor and a patient. It involves an understanding of the patient’s goals and the doctor’s care. He eagerly tries to educate physicians on the use of marijuana as medicine. He is equally opposed to physicians who believe that drug users can’t be trusted and pain medication must be used sparingly. A patient suffering pain with a drug history is often refused pain medication or given such low doses as to provide no real relief for the patient.

The book is filled with suggestions for patients and doctors about finding a common perspective that permits the doctor to work without fear that they are enabling addiction. It is way too easy for a doctor to believe that drug use is laced with such harms, and that the worried physician ignores other gains that are tied to drug use.

In other words, a patient’s marijuana use or other drug use may bring real benefits. Dr. Grinspoon insists that physicians weigh the good and the bad. He reminds us that the bad is often dubious. Medical research has focused on negative outcomes without looking at the real-world gains experienced by users. Such gains should be an objective of the doctor patient relationship.

His book is a polemic against biased research that makes illegal drugs look dangerous, even if the same drug in a hospital or medical setting is used daily. He finds study after study that weights evidence to reach the conclusion that drug use is harmful.

One of Dr. Grinspoon’s hopes is that a common language and approach to evidence can bring a productive dialogue. Unhappily the history of drug research often reveals shoddy methods that bias results. Anyone who has followed the history of drug legalization will not be surprised, but the facts and names of these biased studies are easily found in this thoughtful overview.

While Dr. Grinspoon is often angered by “scientific research” that claims drugs are dangerous, he patiently outlines steps that can make studies fair. One favorite point he hammers home is the popular belief that marijuana interferes with short-term memory. Even studies that make marijuana seem dangerous must admit that this is a temporary condition. While high, a user may have memory difficulties; these disappear as the effect of marijuana dissipates. This conclusion is well established, but all too often the news stories issue unfounded warnings about pot and memory.

Dr. Grinspoon insists that objective research would look at the gains that a person might experience, making the memory lapse insignificant. A user might find his appreciation of a book increases and discover conclusions that would never be found if the person had not used grass.

One of Dr. Grinspoon’s objectives is to make the real-world experiences of drug use be an integral part of scientific research. He is not alone; there are unbiased studies discussing the positive impacts of drug use. He wants the scientific and medical community to find a common set of standards that will permit unbiased research to become the norm.

To be sure, there are dangers surrounding drug use. Dr. Grinspoon softly but firmly wants the banning of sweet edibles that could attract a child, who munches the drugs thinking it is candy but in fact produces massive overdoses. The positive effects of drugs can lead to mistaken beliefs. For example, that a drug will cure cancer.

This is a wise book that takes the guess work out of the growing legalization of drugs by state legislatures. Dr. Grinspoon insists that physicians can and should play an active role in this new legal environment. Physicians can offer real assistance to patients, and he wants the help to increase.