I Believe

• Ruthless Capitalists & Bleeding Heart Liberals - Unite for Ukraine!

  Petro Kalnyshevsky: The Last CossackCurtain up. The stage is set. A warrior, a nation, and a betrayal that would echo for centuries.Imagine. A man who has spent a lifetime fighting for his people, riding into battle, outmaneuvering empires, defending his homeland. He commands warriors, negotiates with kings, and builds a thriving nation from the wild steppe. And then, at 85 years old, after everything he’s given, his so-called ally betrays him.One moment, he was the leader of the fiercest, freest people in Eastern Europe. The next, a prisoner, dragged away in chains, locked in a stone cell, left to rot in the cold, endless dark.This is the story of Peter Ivanovich Kalnyshevsky, the last leader of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, betrayed by the Russians. He lived through the rise and fall of a nation and spent 25 years in confinement, refusing to break.A Warrior’s RiseKalnyshevsky was born in the late 1600s in what is now central Ukraine, a land of vast, untamed wilderness where survival meant strength. From a young age, he was drawn to the life of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the wild horsemen of the steppe. They answered to no king or emperor. They lived by the sword, fought as free men, and bent the knee to no one.By the time Kalnyshevsky rose through the ranks, people both feared and admired the Cossacks. They were known for their brutal raids against the Ottomans and their cunning ability to play empires against each other. But by the mid-18th century, the world was changing. The Russian Empire was expanding, and the Cossacks were caught in a dangerous game.Kalnyshevsky was a master of strategy, on and off the battlefield. In 1762, the people elected him Kosh Ataman, the leader of the Cossacks. Russian Empress Catherine removed him in 1763, but the people, undeterred, elected him against her wishes again in 1765. He ruled with a mix of toughness and diplomacy. Under his command, the Sich thrived. The Cossacks became essential allies to Russia in its wars against the Ottomans, and Kalnyshevsky hoped that by proving their loyalty, he could secure their independence.Catherine had other plans.The Night of BetrayalThe Cossacks failed to shape the battlefield in their favor. They relied on Russian alliances that betrayed them. They believed their contributions would secure their future.By 1774, Russian Empress Catherine the Great had secured a major victory against the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War. That same year, she signed the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, which gave Russia control over Crimea and expanded her empire’s reach. The Cossacks, once useful in the fight against the Ottomans, were now a liability.For years, Catherine had been dismantling Ukrainian autonomy. She had already crushed the Hetmanate, another independent Cossack structure, in the 1760s. The Zaporozhian Cossacks were next. She saw them as too independent, too unpredictable. Their lands were valuable. Their fighting spirit, too dangerous to be left unchecked. The empire could not allow a warrior state to exist within its borders.On the night of June 4th to 5th, 1775, without warning, General Pyotr Tekeli’s army surrounded the Zaporozhian Sich. Sixty thousand Russian soldiers against a few thousand Cossacks. There was no chance. Kalnyshevsky, then 85 years old, knew that fighting would mean slaughter. So he ordered his men to lay down their arms, hoping to negotiate, hoping to save what little remained.He was wrong. Catherine’s betrayal wasn’t just political. It was complete.That night, there was no bloodshed, but two months later, Russia finished the betrayal. On August 3, 1775, Catherine ordered the Sich to be destroyed and wiped off the map. The Russians tore down fortifications, looted homes, and desecrated churches. They seized Cossack records in an attempt to erase their history. Some Cossacks managed to escape to Ottoman-controlled lands. Others were forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. The Zaporozhian way of life, centuries old, was erased.And as for Kalnyshevsky, the empire couldn’t risk letting a legend roam free.Ten Years of DarknessIn July of 1776, the American Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence from Britain. The same month, the Russians arrested and exiled Kalnyshevsky. And not just any prison. Solovetsky Monastery. A frozen fortress in the White Sea, where political prisoners were sent to vanish.Then in 1792, the Russians put him in solitary confinement for ten years. His cell was three meters by three meters, a stone box with no windows, no books, and no human contact. Kalnyshevsky sat in the darkness. He went blind. The world outside changed, but he remained trapped, a relic of a lost nation.He was a warrior who had led thousands into battle, now left alone with nothing but his thoughts and prayers. And yet, he refused to break.The Russian empire expected him to die quickly, but the old Cossack endured.Years of isolation and deprivation robbed him of his vision but not his will. Even the monastery guards, hardened men who had seen many prisoners die in despair, came to admire him. He became known not as a broken old man but as a saint-like figure—silent, unshaken, and still carrying the pride of the Cossacks.In 1801, at the age of 110, Emperor Alexander I of Russia pardoned him. Alexander intended to present himself as a reformer. One of his early acts was to grant amnesty to several long-imprisoned political figures.But it was too late.There was nowhere left to go. The Sich was gone. The Cossacks had been scattered. Kalnyshevsky was an elderly blind man without a home, without a people. So he stayed at the monastery, living out his final two years in quiet solitude.When he died in 1803, he was buried in the cold northern soil, far from the land he had fought for.The Last CossackToday, we remember Petro Kalnyshevsky as a symbol of resistance. He refused to break in the face of an empire.Despite efforts in the 1990s to repatriate them, his remains were never relocated to Ukraine. His gravestone exists, but the exact location of his grave is lost; buried at Solovetsky Monastery in Russia. In 2008, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate canonized him as a saint, recognizing his enduring legacy.Today, the last Cossack still stands. A legend of defiance. A reminder that free people will always fight against Russian aggression.(Beat. Silence.)Curtain down.Scene TwoEnter Stage Right … the CapitalistsIt so happens that funding the fight of a free people against their Russian oppressors isn’t inexpensive. Some Americans think these resources should be a two-way street. If Ukraine wants American support, it needs to prioritize aligning its economic future with US interests. And that starts with a minerals deal.Some say our relationship shouldn’t be transactional. But Friday’s meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky made it clear that the White House isn’t treating support for Ukraine as a matter of ideological solidarity. The United States is making decisions based on interests. If Ukraine wants continued support, securing the mineral rights deal with American companies must be its top priority.Ukraine has a stronger hand than is apparent. America is desperate to counterbalance China’s monopoly in the rare earth element business, and getting rare earth elements from Greenland appears increasingly unlikely. From Ukraine’s perspective, this agreement is about survival. A stable Ukraine isn’t possible without economic security, but economic security depends on stability first. The US won’t invest in a war zone. To establish this stability, the minerals deal must include security guarantees, infrastructure commitments, and long-term stability.War is diplomacy combined with other means. Wars aren’t won only with kinetic weapons. We achieve national objectives with power, with influence, and with the right pressure in the right places. Money and resources are influence. If Ukraine wants American support, it must commit to an economic relationship that makes its survival an American interest. The minerals deal isn’t a side negotiation. It is the negotiation. Enter Stage Left … the Bleeding Heart LiberalsIt may seem unlikely that those who champion the struggle of the Ukrainian people would need to root for the capitalists, but here we are. We may lament the state of the world, but that doesn’t mean we can change it.This is not a new phenomenon. The term “bleeding heart liberal” first appeared in 1938, mocking those pushing for an anti-lynching bill. The bill failed. Lynchings continued. The US didn’t officially make lynching a federal hate crime until 2022—84 years later.History reminds us that moral clarity doesn’t guarantee action. Righteous causes are every day delayed, diluted, or outright denied. And when they are, people suffer. Ukraine can’t afford to wait 84 years for the world to catch up.Despite its lack of grace and decorum, the term never quite disappeared. Last week, Elon Musk took aim on X, commenting:"Every bleeding-heart liberal I talk to about the Russia-Ukraine war wants to keep feeding bodies into the meat grinder forever….They have no plan for success."It’s easy to mock those who care, but caring without strategy prolongs suffering. If Ukraine is to win, security can’t be a moral stance. It must be a vital American interest, which means money, power, and leverage.No one wants more bodies in the meat grinder. Passive support in the form of moral backing, speeches, and aid packages that sustain but don’t resolve the conflict isn’t enough. We need decisive action. That means changing the conditions of the war in a way that forces Russia to back down, not just keeping Ukraine in the fight. We need to turn Ukraine’s security into a US interest through the minerals deal and economic integration. Moral conviction won’t stop Russian aggression. Enter Center Stage … The PragmatistsThe capitalists see opportunity. The bleeding hearts see morality. And the pragmatists see reality. They see that security, economics, and influence are all tied together. If we are to achieve a successful outcome, we have to stop reacting and start shaping the battlefield.Russia is not a friend to the American people. It sponsors violent extremism across Africa and the Middle East, fueling the same instability that leads to deadly attacks on American soil—including the worst in our history, twenty-four years ago. This threat goes beyond terror networks. Russia actively undermines US alliances and disrupts international stability, making the world more dangerous and unpredictable. The stronger Russia’s grip on Ukraine, the more emboldened it becomes elsewhere.Russia has no real incentive to negotiate in good faith because it believes it can outlast Ukraine and Western support. They assume political divisions, shifting US priorities, and battlefield attrition will eventually work in their favor. They will drag out the conflict, knowing that American attention is fleeting. They will use the battlefield as their primary negotiating tool, showing little regard for the lives of their own soldiers, let alone Ukraine’s.Instead of waiting for Russia to decide when it’s willing to talk, the US and our allies need to shape the conditions under which Russia has no good choices.NATO needs to apply pressure to key pieces of vulnerable Russian geography, such as Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a tiny piece of Russia, separated from the main Russian landmass. Even stopping and searching shipping vehicles entering or leaving Kaliningrad sends a message. No blockade, but disruption. It’s not an act of war, but it brings traffic to a standstill. And that means we can blockade Kaliningrad whenever we want.Stopping and searching traffic in and out of Kaliningrad is a message. A warning shot without an empty casing. If Russia escalates or drags their feet in Ukraine, NATO can escalate in Kaliningrad. Russia knows this. Kaliningrad on the table changes the calculus for Russia. Every second they delay in Ukraine, we can squeeze them in Kaliningrad. We need to strengthen our negotiating position. We can’t just ask Russia nicely. Strength is the only thing Putin understands. But leverage isn’t just about more weapons or more aid—it’s about shaping the conditions of the war. We need to make the cost of Russia staying in Ukraine higher than the cost of leaving. And that starts with Kaliningrad.Russia is a threat to the American people, and we need leverage to negate that threat.In SumKalnyshevsky fought well. He resisted. He endured. But he lost. Not because he wasn’t strong enough. Not because the Cossacks lacked courage. They failed to shape the battlefield in their favor and were betrayed by their Russian allies. Ukraine cannot afford to make the same mistake.The American capitalists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the capitalists. The world doesn’t operate on sentimentality. Ukraine must commit to an economic future tied to American interests. Securing a rare earth minerals deal is its survival strategy. The minerals deal isn’t a side negotiation; it is the negotiation.The compassionate need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the compassionate. A tragic reality is that history is full of righteous causes that fail. Support for Ukraine must be more than a moral conviction; it must be a vital US interest.The pragmatists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the pragmatists.We need to shape the battlefield. Russia threatens the American people, and we need leverage. Kaliningrad is that leverage.Free people will always resist Russian aggression. Will America stand with them?May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  18:00
• How do we bring manufacturing back to America?

  A quick note before we dive in. This week, “I Believe” officially hit the numbers to rank as a Top 10% global podcast for all of 2025. Of course, it’s still February, and we have plenty of room to grow. I just want to take a moment to say thanks for listening!…How do we bring manufacturing back to America?🎙️ Tariffs Built American IndustryIn the early 1800s, the United States was still an economic underdog. We had won our independence from Britain, but economically we were far from independent.Across the Atlantic, the Industrial Revolution was transforming British manufacturing. British factories had decades of experience in mass production. They churned out cheap, high-quality goods. Meanwhile, US manufacturing was small, scattered, and struggling to compete.America’s economy revolved around agriculture. Cotton. Tobacco. Wheat. We relied heavily on European imports for manufactured goods. British industries dominated global trade, producing textiles and iron at such low costs that American businesses couldn’t compete.That left us with a major vulnerability: We were too dependent on foreign goods. Without a strong domestic manufacturing base, America had little economic control over its own future.James Madison & The Road to WarIn 1808, America elected James Madison as the fourth President of the United States. Tensions with Britain were boiling over.For years, British naval forces harassed American ships, seized cargo, and forced American sailors into their navy, a practice known as impressment. As an international insult, the British stirred unrest in the Northwest Territory, backing Native American resistance against US expansion.By 1812, America had had enough. On June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Great Britain.The War of 1812: A Mixed OutcomeMilitarily, the War of 1812 was a mess. The US attempted to invade Canada, which … didn’t go well. We did capture York, which is modern-day Toronto, and burned public buildings, but the British retaliated in full force. They marched into Washington, D.C. and burned the White House and the Capitol.But here’s where things get interesting economically.British naval blockades cut off trade. Those cheap British imports we had relied on were gone.American businesses had no choice but to step up. Factories that might have otherwise struggled suddenly had a captive market. We had to produce goods for ourselves, and for the first time, we saw what an independent American industry could look like.The Aftermath & Economic CrisisIn December 1814, the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent. Neither side gained or lost territory. Militarily, it was a stalemate.Symbolically, it was a turning point. The US had stood up to Britain and survived. National pride soared. The war cemented America’s identity as a sovereign power.While the fighting stopped, Britain wasn’t done economically. Almost immediately, British manufacturers flooded American ports with cheap goods, undercutting US businesses and threatening to wipe out our industrial progress overnight.Congress had newfound confidence and a choice. We could let American industry collapse, or step in to protect it.The Tariff of 1816: America’s First Protective TariffIn 1816, Congress gained consensus and passed the first major protective tariff in US history. Even the Senate’s most prominent conservative states’ rights advocate, John C. Calhoun (South Carolina), publically advocated for it. The Tariff of 1816 imposed a 20 to 30% tax on imported goods, particularly textiles, iron, and leather products. Our goal was to make British goods more expensive and give American manufacturers a chance to compete.And it worked. Textile mills in New England flourished. Lowell, Massachusetts, became a booming industrial hub. Iron production surged in Pennsylvania, fueling railroads, construction, and manufacturing.Infrastructure projects expanded as a growing economy demanded better roads and canals.This was America’s manufacturing turning point. It was the moment we moved from a country dependent on foreign goods to one that could build its own industrial future.The Tariff Debate: North vs. SouthNow, not everyone was on board.Southern cotton planters feared retaliation. They worried that if Britain had to pay more for American goods, they’d buy less American cotton in return. Higher tariffs, to them, meant less trade and lower profits.This tariff debate, whether to protect US industries or keep trade open and cheap, would continue for decades. It fueled sectional tensions between the industrial North and the agrarian South.Despite the controversy, the US took its first major step toward economic independence.Instead of relying on Europe, we were finally building an economy of our own.It’s easy to come to the simple conclusion that tariffs protected American industry. You could say, “Our success all started with tariffs!” But that would be a shortsided conclusion. The decisive element that protected and grew American industry was consensus.Tariffs TodayThe Wall Street Journal last week reported President Trump is considering tariffs “in the neighborhood of 25%” on automobiles, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical products. He suggested these tariffs could increase over time. There’s been a lot of discussion lately about tariffs, so that wasn’t so compelling.President Trump suggested that US companies could be given a phase-in period on the items they import. This period could give businesses time to move production back to the US. He even said he’d allow “a little bit of a chance” for companies to re-shore before ramping up the tariffs. He didn’t offer details, but the logic behind giving industry time to come home before tightening the screws is what makes this policy intriguing. He billed it as a different kind of protectionism.In the early 1800s, Congress passed protectionist tariffs to protect American manufacturing from British manufacturing. But American manufacturing was already here. It just needed a kickstart.Today, we face a different challenge. We don’t need to protect industry. We need to rebuild it.Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America began exporting its manufacturing jobs overseas. Jack Welch and General Electric were at the forefront, pushing for offshoring to boost profits. Other companies followed, chasing cheaper labor and higher margins. Bit by bit, America willingly chose to dismantle our own industrial base. Washington stood by and watched as we destroyed our national capability for a quick buck.As an example, that was our moment to save American steel. Had we implemented protective tariffs in the 1960s and 1970s, some of those jobs and, more importantly, that capability might have stayed here.So … the protectionist tariffs President Trump is considering might not just be about protecting our industry from foreign competition.They might be about protecting us from ourselves.And the logic behind that is fascinating.But again, let’s remember that the decisive element that protects and grows American industry is not tariffs. It’s consensus. There’s a key difference between the Tariff of 1816 and today.James Madison and the Tariff of 1816: The Evolution of a Founding FatherJames Madison wasn’t just a president. He was the architect of America.Few figures in American history shaped the nation as profoundly as he did. Before he ever set foot in the White House, he had already built the American framework.He was the Father of the Constitution. He meticulously crafted the structure of the US government. When the new republic teetered on the edge of collapse under the weak Articles of Confederation, it was Madison who designed a stronger system that balanced power between the federal government and the states. He sought stability without tyranny.He didn’t just write the Constitution. He defended it. Alongside Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, Madison co-wrote The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that convinced the states to ratify the Constitution. Without him, there might not have been a Constitution at all.When critics of the Constitution demanded protections for individual liberties, Madison delivered. He authored the Bill of Rights, enshrining free speech, religious freedom, and due process into law.He designed the system. He fought for its ratification. And then, he spent the rest of his career making it work.From Congressman to Secretary of StateMadison served as a congressman from Virginia, playing a crucial role in shaping early American policy. He was one of Thomas Jefferson’s closest allies, standing at the center of nearly every major political battle of the era.He opposed Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government and a national bank, fearing that these would concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government. He fought for states’ rights.He fought against policies that favored wealthy elites over working-class citizens.In 1801, he became Secretary of State under Jefferson. There, Madison oversaw The Louisiana Purchase, one of the most important events in US history. Jefferson saw an opportunity to double the size of the country. Madison handled the negotiations. He drafted the plan and authorized James Monroe to offer a price starting at ten million dollars for the land. In total, four cents per acre. The deal secured vast new lands, opened up the frontier for westward expansion, and strengthened the nation’s position on the world stage.For eight years, Madison handled foreign affairs. He navigated tensions with Britain and France as the US struggled to maintain neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. By the time he took office as president in 1809, conflict with Britain had become unavoidable.Quite a list of accomplishments. The nation forever owes a debt to James Madison.Because he literally wrote the document to govern America, he knew he needed consensus to make America great.Madison and TariffsJames Madison was a champion of divided power, states’ rights, and the right of the people over tyranny.He wrote the document that explicitly gave Congress, not the President, the authority to impose tariffs. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, placed that power in the hands of the legislature.And because he wrote it, Madison knew he could not simply order a tariff into existence. He needed national consensus to prompt Congress to act. A president acting alone creates no legacy, and certainly not a legacy like Madison’s. A policy dictated by one man is erased by the next administration. A policy built through Congress, through debate, and through broad support is the decisive effect that endures.By 1815, Madison publicly acknowledged that the United States needed a strong manufacturing base to avoid dependence on Britain. In his Seventh Annual Message to Congress, he explicitly called for tariffs to protect American industry, marking a major shift in his thinking.Madison understood the stakes. America had the natural resources, the labor force, and the potential to be an industrial power, but manufacturing would not develop on its own. He argued that certain industries, particularly those tied to national defense and essential goods, were too important to be left at the mercy of foreign competition.He knew that without government support, industry could take decades to grow. Without broad, lasting consensus, it would not grow at all. A policy that shifts every four years did not support American industry.Madison’s public support signaled a major shift in Republican thinking. His endorsement reassured moderates, convincing those who had once resisted federal economic intervention.If the Father of the Constitution, the guardian of states’ rights, and the protector of the people’s liberty believed it was in America’s best interest to protect its industry, who would dare question the brilliant President James Madison?Back to TodayThe lesson of 1816 is clear. America owes allegiance to no king. Executive orders are fleeting.Madison worked to build consensus, spurring Congress to action. It was not Madison alone who reshaped America’s economic future. The long-term success of American industry does not rest on executive orders or short-term tariff hikes. Just like in 1816, it rests with Congress.We must deliberate, gain consensus, and pass tariffs that protect American industry, especially our defense capability and goods essential to running American society. We need to make these goods internally and defend ourselves from coercion from other countries.May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  15:14
• Should America give our surplus grain away every year?

  Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?This week, the nation’s Food for Peace Program—and all other United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs—found themselves on the chopping block.Before we go any further, let’s get on the same page.American agriculture is national security.Second, let’s share some quick history.On July 10, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, allowing the president to ship surplus commodities to “friendly” nations on concessional or grant terms. For the first time, America could give away its excess grain to partner nations.In 1961, President John F. Kennedy expanded the program, rebranded it Food for Peace, and established USAID to oversee it.If you believe that those with plenty should help those with nothing, Food for Peace was a success. It became the largest single food donor to the United Nations World Food Programme. In 2022 alone, “American farmers provided more than 4 billion pounds of U.S.-grown grains, soybeans, lentils, rice, and other commodity staples” through the program.It’s also good business for American farmers. Now, Republican lawmakers from agricultural states are fighting to save it.Every government program should face scrutiny. But this one is worth saving.This isn’t about charity. That was a benefit of the program. But Food for Peace wasn’t only about poverty. It was about national security.Global hunger breeds instability.Instability creates openings for adversaries.Adversary influence threatens the American people.So the real question isn’t whether America should shut down an agency that some see as a global social program driven by ideology.We need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Forget charity for a second. Let’s take the question at face value.Should America give our surplus grain away every year?Food Security is National SecurityA country that cannot feed itself becomes a victim of coercion and geopolitical manipulation.By the late 1930s, Japan relied heavily on imports for most of its food and nearly all of its oil, rubber, and metals. Japan’s domestic agriculture couldn’t keep up with its growing population, and they started seizing food from their neighbors. Between 1936 and 1938, 95% of Japan’s imported rice came from Korea or Taiwan (Johnston, B. F. (1953). Japanese Food Management in World War II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 45–49, 166–170, 202–204).Food shortages forced Japan to expand. As its military campaign in China escalated, the US and other Western powers imposed economic sanctions.Japan’s food problem became catastrophic during World War II. Imports were disrupted, military priorities came first, and by 1940, Japan rationed food. Malnutrition, disease, and starvation followed. Beriberi, a disease caused by vitamin B1 deficiency, spiked.Hunger was a key factor in Japan’s surrender. By 1945, US naval blockades and bombing campaigns had destroyed Japan’s food supply chains. America targeted Japan’s food vulnerability as a center of gravity in our strategic approach. Even if the war had continued, famine would have crippled Japan’s ability to fight. After the war, food shortages persisted into the US occupation.This suffering changed Japan’s long-term policies. The country fortified domestic agriculture and imposed high tariffs on imported grains like rice, wheat, and barley. Even today, Japan strictly controls grain imports, avoiding overdependence on foreign suppliers, including the US.The lesson is clear. Food security is national security. It is not just about feeding people. It is sovereignty, stability, and strength.Japan wasn’t the only nation that learned this the hard way.Let’s talk about another fallen American adversary: the Soviet Union.Khrushchev and Yeltsin Go to the Grocery Store!On Monday, September 21, 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev went to the grocery store. Not in Moscow. Not in Leningrad. In San Francisco, California.He walked through aisles of produce, deli meats, and frozen dinners—foods unimaginable in the Soviet Union. The next day, in Des Moines, Iowa, he ate his first American hot dog and joked:“We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.”But in 1959, Khrushchev never publicly admitted shock at America’s grocery stores. That would come later.By the 1980s, Soviet agriculture had collapsed under central planning. Shortages and rationing became commonplace.Then, in 1989, just two months before the Berlin Wall fell, Boris Yeltsin visited a grocery store in Houston, Texas. Unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin couldn’t hide his reaction. The Houston Chronicle described how he roamed the aisles of Randall’s, shaking his head in amazement.Yeltsin had grown up hungry. The Soviet State had taken away his family’s farm, leaving them dependent on a system that couldn’t feed its own people.That grocery store visit shattered any belief in communism. Two years later, as Russian President, Yeltsin ordered Russian state land to be divided into private family farms.From the defeat of Japan to the fall of the Soviet Union, our lesson is that:American Agriculture is National SecurityFood isn’t just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence.Japanese agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.Soviet Russian agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.And today, we still need agricultural abundance.Agricultural AbundanceAmerica’s agricultural dominance isn’t an accident. It’s a deliberate national choice. It’s built on policy, infrastructure, and continuous innovation. Both necessity and profit drive this system.On February 13, President Trump reinforced this priority, signing an Executive Order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission. One of its key tasks is to “Work with farmers to ensure that U.S. food is healthy, abundant, and affordable.”The focus on abundance is critical. Food security isn’t just about today. It’s long-term stability.A nation that produces only ‘just enough’ food is one disaster away from crisis. That’s why the national agriculture system cannot be designed for maximum profit alone. There has to be excess. The system must be resilient.Food production isn’t instant. Crops and livestock take time, land, and weather cooperation. For example, with the recent egg shortages, if producers could ramp up supply overnight to chase profits, they would. But you can’t create egg layers out of thin air.This is why food security requires intentional overproduction.Without surplus, a drought, flood, or disease outbreak can cripple the food supply. Unlike other industries, agriculture can’t instantly scale production to meet demand. Efficiency alone isn’t the right measure. Resilience is the right measure for agriculture. A strong system produces more than necessary because shortages are more dangerous than excess.The resulting surplus shields against uncertainty. It stabilizes the food supply, prevents reliance on foreign imports, and protects against market disruptions. On the world stage, a nation that produces more food than it consumes has leverage. Countries that depend on imports are vulnerable to foreign control. When America has a surplus, adversaries can’t weaponize food against us.In this way, surplus grain isn’t waste. Surplus grain is a strategic asset.There’s another key factor at play.Agriculture is UnpredictableFarmers don’t control the weather, bird flu outbreaks, or global trade policies. One in three years is a bad year for agriculture. A system that only produces ‘just enough’ in a good year guarantees shortages in a bad year.The only way to secure the nation’s food supply is to grow more than needed every year.When one region suffers from drought, another’s surplus offsets the losses. When unpredictable events disrupt production, a buffer ensures food remains affordable and accessible. Surplus keeps Americans fed, prices stable, and the country resilient.Because our agricultural system must be designed this way, we always have more grain than we need. Even though we need surplus every year, we also need to manage it wisely. Uncontrolled surplus drives prices down, hurting American farmers. If we don’t address the grain surplus, we risk losing the ability to grow it.We also need to think about American influence on the world stage.Agricultural Surplus and InfluenceWithout order, scarcity leads to conflict. Nations compete for limited resources. The strong dominate, and the weak suffer. In a world where food shortages create instability, countries that control the global food supply exert power over those that do not.This is why agricultural abundance is more than an economic advantage. It is a tool of influence. Nations with surplus can stabilize their allies, undermine their adversaries, and dictate the terms of trade. Japan and the Soviet Union failed because they could not secure their own food supply. America’s agricultural surplus allowed it to feed its friends and keep its enemies dependent.But surplus alone is not enough. It must be managed strategically. An uncontrolled surplus collapses domestic markets, driving prices so low that farmers go bankrupt. A controlled surplus allows America to direct influence where it matters.Food is both a commodity and a diplomatic asset. Throughout history, America has used surplus grain as a foundation for long-term partnerships. Food aid programs have strengthened alliances, opened trade routes, and cemented US influence in key regions. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and ensured that newly rebuilt economies were tied to American markets. The Food for Peace program fed the hungry while reinforcing US influence in developing nations. It aligned economic structures with American interests rather than Soviet alternatives.Partnerships built on food endure. A nation that depends on America for food security is far less likely to align with adversaries. A reliable food supplier is a stabilizing force in times of crisis. Strategic agricultural surplus is not just about helping others. Our agricultural surplus secures America’s position in the world.We need to extend our influence and maintain strong partnerships to achieve our global security goals. And to do that, we need surplus grain.Which brings us to our question. Should America give our surplus grain away every year? Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?American agriculture is national security.Food is not just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence. On the world stage, America has interests, and we have partners. Reliability and trustworthiness are both virtues and strategic advantages.Surplus grain is not waste. It is a strategic asset that we need to use wisely. The question is not whether we should give grain away. The real question is how we should use it to advance American interests.If you believe that those with plenty, like America, have a duty to help those with nothing, then Food for Peace was a success. But food aid is not charity. It is good business for American farmers and a powerful tool of influence.Food aid programs do more than just feed people. They strengthen alliances. They open trade routes. They cement US influence. They align global economic structures with American interests rather than those of our adversaries.We might choose not to send our surplus grain through the United Nations World Food Programme. We might prefer more direct control over where we exert influence.But we must choose to use American agriculture to reinforce partnerships, secure influence, and protect our global standing.May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  14:12
• Why Is Remembering American History So Hard?

  Why is remembering American history so hard? It’s a question that needs an answer because Black history is American history, and federal agencies decided to ban Black History Month. Black history isn’t just Black history. It’s a record of our constant battle between order and justice. To erase it is to erase the struggle that defines our national identity. It may be easier to maintain a neat, sanitized version of our history than to confront the struggle and resistance justice demands, but that ease is detrimental to America.If remembering Black history is too difficult, maybe we should turn to the one document that defines our national values. Every state in the Union agreed with the verbiage. You’d think it would offer clarity. But even there, justice and order are locked in a constant struggle. The Constitution sets both as national goals, side by side. Then, history demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash and how essential they are to each other.Justice Disrupts Order, and Order Suppresses JusticeLast week, we discussed the inherent tension between justice and order. Ensuring domestic tranquility and establishing justice are two of our six national goals, but they are often at odds.Tranquility means a society built on order, stability, and mutual respect. Tranquility is a deliberate national choice to maintain a collective structure.Justice is the foundation for a society in which individuals can fulfill their roles and contribute to the nation’s well-being. It includes fair and equal treatment under the law, equal access to individual opportunity, and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing. Justice threatens order. We build institutions and cultural norms around systems that offer stability but perpetuate inequality and power imbalance. Calls for justice expose inherent flaws. They challenge the status quo. Order threatens justice. While order is necessary for social stability, the rigid pursuit of order obstructs justice. Groups in power preserve the status quo instead of addressing systemic imbalances. They argue that stability must be maintained at all costs. This focus on order suppresses dissent and marginalizes groups that call for reform. No American better embodies the tension between justice and order than the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But to really understand the challenge of justice, order, and Dr. King, we need to first understand Reverend Billy Graham.Billy Graham Believed in OrderIn 1954, TIME Magazine called Reverend Billy Graham “the best-known, most talked-about Christian leader in the world today, barring the Pope.” US presidents sought his council. He became the moral advisor to the nation.By 1957, Graham was at the height of his influence as America’s most prominent evangelist. That year marked his landmark New York City Crusade. The 16-week revival held at Madison Square Garden drew massive crowds. Over two million people attended, and more than 60,000 responded to his call for conversion. Graham’s sermons emphasized personal salvation and moral living. His message resonated with many Americans wrestling with Cold War anxiety and social change. It offered comfort in uncertain times.During this crusade, Graham crossed paths with a young reverend, Martin Luther King Jr., for the first time. Graham hoped to expand the reach of his message to a broader audience and invited King to speak in New York. King spoke of a brotherhood that transcended race and color. He hoped alliances with influential figures like Graham could accelerate the fight for civil rights.By 1960, differences between the two men’s approaches emerged. Graham made it clear he valued social order above civil disobedience. He stated…“I do believe that we have a responsibility to obey the law. Otherwise, you have anarchy. And, no matter what that law may be—it may be an unjust law—I believe we have a Christian responsibility to obey it.”There it is. Order versus justice.Graham wasn’t just preaching personal salvation—he was tapping into a national desire for stability in a time of upheaval. For many, his message was a soothing alternative to the discomfort of systemic injustice.Graham’s stance reflected the views of many Americans at the time. They were uncomfortable with the confrontational approach of the Civil Rights movement. They preferred order to justice. Graham’s supporters argue he wasn’t racist. They argue he was called to a mission focused on personal salvation rather than political activism. His critics argue that his reluctance to challenge unjust laws reflected a failure to meet the moral urgency of the moment.No matter the reason, his line was drawn by April 1963. As Graham envisioned order, King led the Birmingham Campaign. This bold, nonviolent movement targeted deep-rooted segregation and racial injustice in one of America’s most racially divided cities.Letter from a Birmingham JailIn April 1963, Birmingham, Alabama, was the most violently racist city in the United States. Its aggressive resistance to desegregation earned it the nickname “Bombingham” due to the frequent bombings of Black homes and churches by white supremacists. From 1945 to 1962, white supremacists conducted 50 racially motivated bombings of Black American homes, businesses, and churches.They bombed the home of Reverend Milton Curry Jr. on August 2, 1949. The home of Monroe and Mary Means Monk on December 21, 1950. The home of the minister of Bethel Baptist Church, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, on December 24, 1956. The Ku Klux Klan bombed Bethel Baptist Church on June 29, 1958. It was the second time the Klan had bombed the church. On and on. 50 bombings. Amid the years of bombings, Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor led the city government to openly enforce Jim Crow laws with brutal tactics. They used police dogs, fire hoses, and mass arrests to suppress civil rights demonstrations.Quite a backdrop. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. arrived in Birmingham, Alabama, on April 3, 1963, to lead the Birmingham Campaign. It was the season of the major Christian holiday of Easter. On Easter, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his love for humanity. We remember our vow to love God and love others. King’s Birmingham Campaign included nonviolent protests against segregation and racial injustice. King and other activists planned sit-ins, marches, and boycotts targeting businesses that upheld segregation. On April 10, 1963, Circuit Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama W. A. Jenkins, Jr. issued an injunction prohibiting the demonstrations. King and others chose to defy the order. They viewed it as an unjust law meant to suppress their Constitutional rights. On April 12, Good Friday, the day Christians remember the Romans putting Christ to death, authorities arrested King and at least 55 other leaders for “parading without a permit.” King spent 9 days in jail. They loved him so much they denied him even his phone call. While in jail, King read a public letter from eight white Alabama clergymen who criticized the protests as “unwise and untimely.” They urged activists to seek justice through the courts rather than the streets. King wrote his response to the letter in the margins of a newspaper and on scraps of paper smuggled in by friends. The pieces became the iconic Letter from Birmingham Jail. In it, King defends civil disobedience and highlights the moral urgency of confronting injustice.King explicitly calls out Americans who are “more devoted to order than to justice; who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”There it is again. Order versus justice.…Let’s reestablish that this is not a Black history topic. This is a Constitutional topic. This is the interlocked American history of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr. Just as we have a national goal to ensure order, we have a national goal to establish justice.Order and justice. Two ideals, forever competing. Let’s pause for a minute and honor the genius of Gouverneur Morris, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, who wrote the Preamble; the founding fathers that agreed to the verbiage; and each state in the Union for ratifying the document. Together, they laid out national goals that were almost impossible to achieve. They understood the delicate balance needed to hold a diverse and divided nation together. In the ultimate irony, they placed the words establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility side by side in the Preamble.They knew a society striving for justice would inevitably disrupt the status quo. We would challenge entrenched power. It would create tension. At the same time, they recognized that without order, society could descend into chaos. Chaos makes justice impossible to sustain. This tension is a feature of the system. The struggle forces every generation to wrestle with competing ideals.Each principle threatens the other. But that’s not why they are next to each other in the Constitution.They’re next to each other because each value is essential to achieve the other. Justice Enables OrderJustice sets the conditions for trust. In an environment of justice, people trust that they have rights, that those rights are protected, and that fairness governs social interactions. They trust that they are treated equitably, regardless of race, class, or background.In a just society, people respect the rules and institutions that govern their lives. Justice fosters legitimacy, and legitimacy is the foundation of stable, lasting order.Enforcing order without justice is impossible. Without justice, any semblance of order is fragile. Authorities may attempt to maintain control through fear, repression, or coercion, but this “order” is unsustainable. It breeds resentment, resistance, and unrest. A society that values individuals, respects rights, and offers real opportunities for prosperity doesn’t need to police itself into submission.Back to Birmingham in 1963. Authorities claimed they were maintaining order, but that “order” depended on segregation, discrimination, and suppression. It wasn’t order—it was controlled instability. The American people’s demand for justice didn’t just disrupt order—it exposed what many called ‘order’ was a system built on oppression.On the surface, one might assume that justice threatens order. But justice and order are not rivals. Justice isn’t just compatible with order—it’s the only thing that makes order possible.As justice enables order, order sustains justice. Order Sustains JusticeOrder is necessary to sustain justice. Justice requires a strong institution of structure, law, and social framework to establish and maintain it. Without order, these systems collapse. This collapse makes it impossible to protect individual rights, ensure fairness, or maintain trust in governance.History demonstrates that righteous justice movements rely on some level of structure to succeed. Back again to Birmingham in 1963. The Civil Rights Movement made lasting change in the nation. But dismantling segregation depended on legal victories, organized protests, and strategic leadership. Without disciplined nonviolent resistance combined with a functioning legal system to challenge unjust laws, racial justice would have remained an ideal rather than a reality.Even when we achieve justice, we still have a duty to preserve it. A just society cannot exist in a constant state of upheaval. Laws must be enforced, rights must be protected, and institutions must remain strong to prevent injustice from creeping back in. Without order, justice is fleeting. It becomes a moment of fairness swallowed by instability.Justice corrects and refines order, but order provides the structure that allows justice to endure.American HistoryJustice and order are not Black history. They are American history. They are the interlocked American history of Reverend Billy Graham, who believed in order, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who knew order was not possible without justice.This is a Constitutional topic. Just as we have a national goal to maintain order, we have a national goal to establish justice.Today, we continue to struggle with order and justice. We will always struggle with order and justice. History demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash. When we look deeper, we see how essential they are to each other. There is no order without justice. We cannot sustain justice without order.We don’t have to do it in February every year, but if we don’t study Black history, how will we remember American history?May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  16:26
• Who is the Champion of 'We, the People?'

  Before we discuss progressives today and ask, “Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’”, we need some context. We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve America’s goals.But progressivism’s focus drifted. To meet our goals, we must restore it as a center of gravity—focused on the people, not just the government.…Conservatives believe in America and strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. Their principles respect tradition, state and local governance, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Their philosophy values the wisdom of the past, seeks cautious progress in the present, and envisions a stable, prosperous future. From a business standpoint, conservatives rely on their commitment to personal responsibility. They advocate for free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention. They believe that to command higher wages, workers are responsible for increasing their value. They oppose unfunded federal mandates because they face the reality that to pay higher wages, businesses must increase revenue or face elimination. High worker pay reduces profitability and can threaten business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to minimize wages to maximize profits. Conservative values strongly benefit America. They advance living standards by driving economic growth, encouraging innovation, and fostering competition.Democrats and Republicans alike can be conservatives.…Like conservatives, progressives believe in the American ideal. Progressives view the government as a go-between representative for the people. An intermediary. Strong progressives advocate for fairness and equality across American society. They believe the government must set conditions enabling every individual to have a fair chance to be great. Regarding business, progressives believe the government must set conditions enabling fair workplace environments, including pay, safety, and hours. They pass federal mandates that benefit workers and America as a whole. They seek to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state. Progressive values strongly benefit America. They advance American society by promoting justice and economic stability, protecting worker rights, and ensuring fair wages. Government regulations create safer workplaces, prevent exploitation, and help sustain a middle class that drives consumer demand.Republicans and Democrats alike can be progressives.…As a related topic, let’s recall there are six national goals outlined in the Constitution. Union… Order… Defense… Welfare… Justice… and Liberty… Some might view the goals as having different priorities. For example, conservatives might lean toward order over justice, while progressives might choose the opposite. But the truth is that all six goals carry the same weight.So … if conservatives and progressives see different priorities—but the goals themselves are equal—then we need both perspectives to achieve them. Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.Now that we have shared context, that brings us to this week’s question. Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’Representative AOC and Jon StewartOn the January 23 episode of The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)—better known simply as AOC—joined host, hilarious comedian, and all-around great American Jon Stewart for a lengthy interview.At around 45:20, Stewart and AOC begin a portion of their conversation that YouTube has named “What is the Process of Redefining what the Democratic Party Represents?” Stewart comments— “People are thirsty for … leadership. The Democrats, I think, have had a really difficult time responding to that thirst, responding to that action. What is the process then of redefining what this party is, what it represents moving forward, and are there leaders there?”Representative AOC responds—“If you ask a working-class American or just any normal American, what is a Democrat? What do they stand for? They will not really be able to give you a clear answer …”A meaningful exchange. …Okay. Let’s tie our thoughts together.We need both conservative and progressive ideas to attempt to achieve the goals outlined in the Constitution.Conservatives have not wavered in their commitment to personal responsibility. They believe workers are responsible for their own wages. They oppose unfunded federal mandates. They support business profitability, recognizing the challenges of balancing profitability and survival.Now for progressives. While both parties can have progressives, Democrats lean that way more often. So…to answer AOC’s question…what do progressives stand for?Working-class Americans no longer see a strong group of progressives fighting on their behalf. Progressives face a crisis of identity. They have become the party of government, not the party of the people. Leaders like AOC openly acknowledge this gap.Let’s ask again. Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’Do Progressives Believe in the People?There are two points to be made here.The first is a fundamental truth in life. Never reinforce your shaping effort—focus everything on the decisive action that brings real change. Save and expend all your resources, or as many as possible, towards your decisive effort.For progressives, this means fighting against conservatives is a waste of time and resources. Political battles for the sake of winning political theater don’t serve the American people. In the fleeting moments when progressives have both the public will and the political consensus to create meaningful change, every ounce of decisive effort must be spent on delivering tangible results. Wasting that energy on ideological fights, political purity tests, or symbolic victories only kills progress for those who need it most.Progressives need to fight for the people, not against conservatives. Every moment spent trying to score points against the opposition is a moment not spent improving wages, expanding opportunity for kids who live in projects or leaky trailers, or securing a better future for working Americans. If progressives are serious about governance, their singular focus must be delivering real, lasting benefits to the people they claim to represent. Anything less is a waste of precious time and resources.The second point is even more fundamental: the point of government is not government.Government does not exist to serve itself. It is not meant to perpetuate its own power or sustain bureaucratic inertia. The entire premise of American governance is that it is of, by, and for the people. That means every policy, every law, and every decision should be measured against a simple standard: Does this advance American interests toward achieving one of our six goals for the American people?Progressives lose sight of this. Their attention drifts to prioritizing expanded government authority or making governance easier over empowering individuals. They allow their focus to change toward maintaining political control instead of achieving progress for working-class America. This breaks the trust of the people they claim to serve.So the question remains: Do progressives believe in the people? If they do, then their path is clear. They must fight for them, not against their political opponents. They must use government as a tool to uplift Americans, not as a means to sustain itself. And they must never forget that political victory is not a measure of success. It’s measured by the prosperity of the working-class people they serve.Many of us are both conservatives and progressives. We strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. And we believe in progress toward achieving our national goals for the American people.Because we are both conservatives and progressives, we can reword our takeaways to make them more relevant.Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve America’s goals.Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.The point of government is not government. Political victory is not a measure of success.We measure our success by the prosperity of the working-class people we serve.We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.May God bless the United States of America. Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe

  --------  

  10:51

More Society & Culture podcasts

Trending Society & Culture podcasts

About I Believe