Against all odds, former President Donald Trump appears to have won a decisive victory and will become the 47th president of the United States. He will be only the second American in history reelected to a non-consecutive presidential term. Trump prevailed despite the opposition of every institution in America, including the corrupt media and government.
Far from merely a defeat for his notional opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, a stand-in for the status quo, or the failed presidency of dotard Joe Biden, Trump’s victory marks a consolidation of the New Right. What lies ahead will be such a radical break that it will make Trump’s first term look like a warmup.
Many pundits across the political spectrum will hope that the election result is an aberration: that Trump is a populist who bewitched the Republican Party and then duped the electorate. Perhaps he won because of Biden’s decay, the late switch to Harris, or an electorate that the elite deems too stupid to understand how good it has it.
Unfortunately for the doubters, the reality is far more stark than merely a transient setback or misunderstanding. Trump is the vehicle. The force behind his victory marks a fundamental turning point in U.S. history and the politics of the right around the world. This is not the high-water mark of the fight against the system. Rather this marks a critical mass in the effort to replace that system.
Trump’s first victory in 2016 was a willingness by a public angered by a lost decade of economic stagnation and lost wars to give an unknown outsider a chance to mix things up. His second victory is a decision by that electorate, which now has his measure precisely, to supplant a corrupt system that runs through American and western society — a feckless compilation of self-appointed referees known also as the “elite” or the “establishment.”
What was whimsy then is now determination and it is much bigger than just Trump. The system put everything it had into this election and it lost.
Those at home and abroad who have estranged themselves from the MAGA movement will take false solace from Trump’s previous term. This time will be different. The degree to which Trump changes America will depend on the effectiveness of his administration and an always-disappointing Congress. But it will be different.
In broad terms, one should assume that Trump will reduce regulations and taxes to spur the productive part of the economy. Conceptually, his polices will supplant globalism with nationalism, including higher tariffs.
He will dispense with the progressive religions of climate change alarmism and racism under the banner of diversity. Despite being a late addition to his campaign, he will seek reductions in government spending except Social Security and Medicare.
Internationally, he will devote fewer resources and less time to irrelevant or exotic alliances and partnerships, focusing instead on ones that matter most. He will order the largest deportation program since the Eisenhower administration. However, he will otherwise seek the reduction of the national security state, especially the intelligence bureaucracy, the Justice Department and the secret police, all of which sought to undermine his presidency and reelection campaigns.
The big question is how far Trump wants to go and how far he will be able to go. In a nation of 335 million, it theoretically should not be hard to find effective and loyal people to fill the roughly 4,000 politically appointed positions in the executive branch. Yet subject-matter expertise in government and a willingness to confront the swamp while living in it are evidently rare qualities.
Trump One had more than its fair share of appointees who were indifferent or opposed to the president’s wishes, joined by two million federal civilian employees, most of whom hated his guts. Trump’s own aides recognized the failure with personnel and were planning big changes in a second term. Trump himself acknowledged the problem in his recent podcast with Joe Rogan.
If Trump and his top lieutenants manage personnel better — acknowledging that some duds and flops among appointees are impossible to avoid entirely — his impact will be magnified greatly. His term could see big tech broken up, the military transformed radically and reoriented to the Pacific, the seeds planted for the type of news media that America deserves, the border secured and all illegals deported, mass reductions in government employment and handouts in order to balance the budget, and universities regulated to teach real things instead of disdain for America.
However, no matter how well Trump does, one thing is already clear. The New Right he has helped to create is now not only dominant but insurmountable on its side of the political spectrum. The “NeverTrump” Republicans may still land some media money, but they no longer exist as a political force.
They have gone the way that Rockefeller Republicans did during the Reagan administration. The fact that anyone under fifty will have to look up what a “Rockefeller Republican” was is a testament to their extinction — and that of today’s opponents of Trump and the New Right among Republicans.
A final point is that this election’s rebuke of the system is not just political but cultural as well. Trump and the rise of the New Right are not just about the economy, inflation, tax rates and America losing. It is also a cultural shift. The system told Americans that voting for Trump would lead not just to bad policy but was morally wrong. He is a (fake) felon. He is a (fake) fascist. He is a lout and a liar — or so came the word from the system’s hypocrites projecting their own traits on Trump.
Electing Trump was a rejection of this schoolmarmery. It is a rejection of they/them pronouns, tampons in boys’ rooms, school shutdowns, neurotic Karens who politicize everything, celebrities who deign to preach, attempts to emasculate the military and everything else in America, and all of the other progressive passions. Trump’s election marks a return to normalcy in which merit and achievement are celebrated instead of politics and preening.
Like President Calvin Coolidge observing that “the chief business of the American people is business,” it is a deliberate turn inward, a focus on real life, and a decision to keep politics in its place.
Presumably there will be much emoting ahead. Who can forget the screaming woman at Trump’s first inauguration or the boo-hoo look on the faces of reporters for most of the following four years? (I was reminded of my own return to State Department headquarters after President George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection — I had Darth Vader’s “Imperial March” tune in my head as I enjoyed all of the sadder-than-usual faces.) Less amusing were the Russia hoax, the phony Ukraine impeachment, and the “Summer of Love” riots orchestrated by Antifa and BLM.
Who knows what lies ahead this time. But it is important to keep in mind that Trump and his policies have a clear mandate from the republic he will soon lead again. The country has spoken. And the country and the world will be changed.
Christian Whiton is a contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation. He was a State Department senior advisor in the Trump and Bush administrations. He is a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest and a principal at DC International Advisory. The author of “Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War,” he co-hosts the “Domino Theory” podcast and edits “Capitalist Notes” on Substack. This article was first published on “Capitalist Notes.”
This analysis looks at President Trump’s first three years in office—2017, 2018 and 2019, the pre-COVID era—to get a more unbiased view of the policy impact of his approach.
In Trump’s first three years:
Trump extended economic growth to achieve the longest economic expansion in the history of the U.S.: 10.5 years.
To do this, Trump created 7.1 million full-time jobs in his first 3 years as president, the jobs that count: full-time jobs, in the pre-COVID era. This is more than an amazing feat because Trump only created 6.7 million total jobs. How did Trump increase full-time jobs by more than his total job increase? By making every job he created a full-time job, and, most importantly, converting 400,000 of Obama’s part-time jobs into full-time.
By comparison, Harris/Biden only created 1.0 million full-time jobs in the last two years, September 2022 to September 2024, the post-COVID era. Most of their job creation has been part-time jobs.
Trump created so many jobs that job openings exceeded the number of unemployed for the first time in history, not only exceeded but went on to double the number of unemployed.
The open job force was so strong under Trump’s first three years that he was stripping 160,000 people per month out of welfare for a total reduction of welfare recipients of 8.5 million, 19% of the total recipients.
The open job force was so strong that, for the first time ever, a million people left Social Security Disability and went from consuming Social Security tax dollars to paying into the system.
Trump pushed the bankruptcy date for the Social Security system back by years through welfare enrollment reduction and increased employment and wages.
Trump’s lowest unemployment rate of 3.5% was the lowest level since Eisenhower, just 0.1%, a tenth of a percent from its lowest level ever.
Trump set 12 all-time records for Black employment, pushing Black unemployment to its lowest level in recorded history, 5.3%, far below Obama’s lowest rate of 8.0%.
Trump reduced the personal income taxes for all families of four or more making $53,000 or less to zero. In the other 150+ countries of the world, such families are considered rich and pay tens of thousands in taxes. Economists have not begun to understand the full ramifications of this feat. In chess, it’s called checkmate. No other country can get the upper hand.
As a result, the wealth of the bottom 50% of the U.S. increased by $1.4 trillion under Trump. Under Obama’s last four years? 0.8 trillion
In a sane, rational world, Trump would have earned three economics Nobel prizes, setting records for trade, unemployment reduction, economic growth, and achieving economic equality. (That’s equality, not equity).
Trump’s strategy for his second term: the roaring 20s, where growth was 40% as compared to Obama’s 11%. The 1922 Fordney-McCumber tariffs of 40% were combined with a reduction of the personal income tax rate from 76% to 25% under Calvin Coolidge.
I am confident that Trump is eyeing a massive trade deal with China, just like Trump’s USMCA, which has shifted the trade balance of the world.
If Trump is successful at combining a modest and carefully designed broad tariff of 20% or less with equal or greater business tax rate reduction, we are likely to have the roaring 20s all over again. Hard to believe that the U.S. economy of $28 trillion could grow another 40% in the next four years but hold on to your hats.
John Huppenthal was the Arizona Superinterndent of Public Instruction from 2011-2015. Prior to this role, John served as a member of the Arizona State Senate and the Arizona House of Representatives. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Arizona home prices continue to be a major issue for people in the closing weeks of the 2024 General Election.
Last week, the Common Sense Institute Arizona unveiled its report for “Arizona Housing Affordability” for quarter 3 of 2024, sharing a “comprehensive analysis that details current challenges in Arizona’s housing market, including the ongoing housing shortage, escalating costs, and affordability issues that persist across the state.”
The report highlights that the state “is currently experiencing a housing shortfall of 65,721 units,” that “the average home price is nearly 23% higher than it would have been if prices had maintained the pre-pandemic trend,” and that “the number of building permits issued in Arizona has continued to drop, affecting the state’s ability to meet housing demand.”
“The high costs of housing in Arizona are creating significant barriers to homeownership, especially for lower-income families and first-time buyers,” said Zachary Milne, Senior Economist and Research Analyst. “While minor improvements in mortgage rates have provided some relief, the state’s overall housing deficit continues to widen, reflecting the need for housing policies that boost supply and affordability.”
CSI found that “it would take at least ten years for Arizona to resolve this [housing] deficit, that “it would still take 41 months for housing prices to fall back in line with the 2012-2019 trend if prices continued to decline at this pace [of July and August], that “new homebuyers today face nearly $500 more in monthly mortgage costs,” and that “it would take Maricopa County over 85 years to close their housing deficit.”
In a comment to AZ Free News about the report, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen said, “It’s truly unfortunate the Governor vetoed the bipartisan Arizona Starter Homes Act and halted new home construction in two of the most booming areas in the Valley. Her actions have negatively impacted Arizona’s housing supply by contributing to the shortage, and as a result, hardworking Arizonans are having a difficult time achieving their American dream of homeownership because of skyrocketing prices. Republicans will continue to put bills on her desk to help alleviate the supply shortage next session, and we hope she will do the right thing by signing them.”
Recent polls have indicated that the issue of housing affordability is a top-three concern for many voters around the country, including in Arizona, affecting the upcoming election in November.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The dead-end hyperinflationary policies of the Biden-Harris administration have put the American Dream out of reach for many young people. I have talked to my 21-year-old daughter about this so many times that it breaks my heart.
Ruby, like so many young Americans, is doing everything right. She works hard, she saves up, but that old-fashioned notion of the white-picket fence seems to be slipping away from her grasp. Part of the reason I am running for Senate is to make America affordable again. And I know that bringing down out-of-control housing prices is the key to restoring access to the American Dream for our young people.
Per Federal Reserve data, in 1984, the median U.S. household income was $22,400 and the median home price was $78,200, or about 3.5 times the median income. By 2022, median household income had risen to $74,580, but median home prices had risen to over $433,000 — or nearly six times median income.
Elected officials owe it to our constituents to take clear and decisive action to reduce housing costs.
There has been so much focus on the role of interest rates, but the answer to bringing them back down, while hard to achieve, is fairly straightforward: the federal government needs to stop printing money we don’t have so that it can pay bills that we can’t afford. Taming that imbalance won’t be quick or easy, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods.
But there is another key element of the housing crisis that we can address quickly and effectively: a lack of skilled tradespeople. According to an analysis by Associated Builders and Contractors, the United States is short over half a million skilled construction workers. The lack of skilled construction workers combined with rapidly increasing costs of materials is creating a roadblock to building the millions of additional housing units that are needed to relieve the cost bottleneck.
Bringing down the cost of materials largely hinges on three things: reducing the price of energy and fuel, eliminating excessive regulations created by the Biden-Harris administration, and increasing the number of skilled workers available to producers. Limitations on oil-and-gas production and refining are leading to rapidly increasing fuel and energy costs that have inflated the price of building materials by tens of thousands of dollars per home.
Likewise, excessive regulation and DEI mandates being forced on producers by the Biden-Harris administration are also increasing materials and labor costs, without appreciable benefit to society in terms of reduced inequality. Lastly, the rush to send every high school graduate to a four-year college, with massive government subsidies, is draining the workforce of skilled tradespeople which both increases the cost of construction and delays additional new home starts.
Solving the first two problems is very simple. Replace President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris with Donald Trump, overturn the current administration’s pointless and counterproductive executive mandates, and you are two thirds of the way there. The last step — increasing the number of skilled construction workers — is going to take more effort.
But with some simple changes in federal education funding and policy, we can turn that deficit around in a matter of just a few years by revising federal education funding and loans to stop discriminating against trade schools and technical education and support the development of a skilled workforce sufficient to meet the demands of our housing market.
First, we need to revise the guidelines for Pell grants to allow them to be issued and used for more students to attend trade and technical schools. Second, if the government is going to continue to back student loans, eligibility for those loans needs to be aggressively expanded to include more trade schools.
Currently, trade-school students can access government-backed student loans, but only if their trade school is federally accredited. Many are not. Getting the vast majority of trade schools nationwide accredited so their students have access to government-backed loans should be a major priority for the next administration and will be a priority of mine in the U.S. Senate.
Lastly, the government needs to aggressively partner with industry to expand trade school opportunities by making low-interest loans available to companies and unions to invest in new and expanded trade and technical-school facilities.
The cost to attend trade and technical schools is far less than the cost of a four-year degree, and the returns on that investment are astronomical. A few thousand dollars of up-front investment in these careers yields a lifetime of high earnings, and resultant increased tax revenues. As a result, investing in expanding our skilled workforce is responsible governance, and must be a priority going forward.
Free-market economist Milton Friedman was hardly anti-immigration. He acknowledged that, pre-1914, immigrants came “for a better life for them and their children. In the main they succeeded,” broadly benefiting their adopted country.
But there was an important caveat. “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare.” Immigrants dependent on public benefits don’t boost their host country. They have the effect of “a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level.”
Leftists may not like it, but Friedman was right. We’re about to learn the lesson good and hard.
The tens of millions of “undocumented” immigrants now arriving in America have a much different outlook than immigrants of a century ago. In short, today’s immigrants don’t work that much.
A study of Census data by the Atlanta Federal Reserve reported that while over half of new jobs created in the last two years have gone to illegal immigrants, so many have come that barely half of working age, non-college immigrants are in the labor force. Five of six native Americans 25 through 64 regularly work.
The Border Patrol recorded over 10 million illegal immigrants processed during the Biden years plus countless millions not detected. Yet foreign-born employment increased by only 2.32 million. So, who is supporting the rest? We are.
California is the poster child for dependent illegal immigrants. There they get taxpayer-funded health insurance, food stamps, housing allowances, and myriad other benefits, costing $22.8 billion in state and local taxes alone, according to the pro-immigration Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Yet this for a population that generated just $8.5 billion in income.
Moreover, many of the programs are direct federal subsidies which means we all participate in their funding. Beyond all this is the escalation in spending by NGOs and philanthropic agencies to house, clothe, and feed the millions of “newcomers” being bused around the country, again at our expense.
The increased pressure on the federal budget, which immigration “hawks” warned against not long ago, has already been normalized. The discussion has subtly passed from whether illegal immigrants should be included in public benefits to how this should be accomplished. Deportation, once assumed for those who failed their asylum hearings (which most do), is now regarded as logistically and morally impossible.
It’s no mystery why our welfare system is a worldwide magnet. Average benefits received by working age households have risen from $7,352 in 1967 to $64,700 in 2022, adjusted for inflation. Welfare spending now consumes 72.6 percent of unobligated revenues (an accounting which doesn’t count payroll taxes or mandatory interest payments) while defense spending has fallen by half.
Most Americans don’t realize that official poverty statistics distributed by the Census Bureau don’t count as income. 88% of the transfer payments made to alleviate poverty. As noted by Gramm and Arrington in the Wall Street Journal, “The census doesn’t count refundable tax credits, food stamp debit cards, free medical care through Medicaid or benefits from about 100 other transfer payments as income.”
When these benefits are deemed to be income, 80% of those today who are counted as poor are no longer poor and the bottom three income quintiles in the Census Bureau all have approximately the same spending power.
With the abundance of means-tested transfer payments available, the percentage of working age persons in the bottom quintile who work has fallen from 68% to 38%. For about the same income, 2.4 times as many workers in the second lowest quintile actually work—and on average work 85% more hours than those in the bottom quintile.
Welfare beneficiaries in the main aren’t liars or cheaters. They are making rational decisions in an irrational environment. America is unfortunately a nation deeply in debt, living on anticipated income from the future. We spend money as if we still had it. The kids will figure it out.
The driving motive behind immigration policy is still to permanently alter the political landscape. The ultimate victims may be the migrants themselves, attracted by promises that in the long run can’t be kept.
As Friedman pointed out, we can’t enrich others by impoverishing ourselves. We all just become more poor.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
