Politics

This article examines the economic and geopolitical position of the United States as of mid-2026. It analyzes the recent deceleration in real output growth, the persistence of above-target inflation, and the trajectory of public indebtedness, and it relates these macroeconomic conditions to the country’s standing within the international system. The analysis concludes that the principal constraints on the American position are endogenous in origin: they derive from domestic fiscal decisions and from the attenuation of the legitimacy that underpins the country’s alliance relationships, rather than from the direct exercise of power by rival states. ...

Net interest on the federal debt is on pace to cross $1 trillion this fiscal year, more than the Pentagon spends, a gap the Congressional Budget Office says holds every year from 2025 through 2035 (CBO, 2025). And on the CBO’s own current baseline, the boring one, no crisis, no shock, no recession assumed, debt held by the public breaks the record set in 1946 at the height of World War II by fiscal year 2030 (CBO, 2026). That’s roughly four years out. Whatever actually fixes this needs to already be running by then, not still working its way through committee. ...

The Illusion of Control Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent frames the move as a liquidity measure for a thin summer bond market, not an attempt to suppress yields by fiat. Call it what you will: the mechanism is the same, the government stepping in to buy debt investors don’t want, at prices they wouldn’t otherwise pay. Bessent’s decision to double the debt buyback program is not a solution. It is a desperate gamble that will fail on contact with reality. The move is predicated on a dangerous illusion: that the U.S. Treasury can outmaneuver the bond market by sheer force of will. This is not fiscal policy; it is magical thinking dressed in bureaucratic jargon. ...

Steven Miller, I’m writing to you as a Stoic, an atheist, and a progressive: not to convert you, but to challenge you. I don’t share your faith, but I do share your humanity, and it’s on that common ground that I want to speak. My goal isn’t to mock or dismiss you, but to ask you to consider the consequences of your words and actions, and to reflect on whether they align with the values you claim to uphold. ...

I have spent years writing about honor as if it were an antique: a virtue our ancestors practiced and we merely study. Stoic biographies, civics essays, a shelf of books about how a person builds a defensible inner life. I used to think the point of that work was personal: how do I hold myself together when nobody’s watching? Lately I’ve had to sit with a second, less comfortable question underneath it. What happens to a country when the people running it stop asking that question at all? ...

The 2026 Senate Map: A Race-by-Race Guide The setup: Republicans currently hold the Senate 53–47. Thirty-five seats are on the November 2026 ballot — 33 regular contests plus two special elections to fill vacancies. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to take the majority; Republicans can afford to lose only two and still hold it outright (a loss of three produces a 50–50 tie, broken by the vice president). ...

Elon Musk and the Engineering of Chaos: A Scholarly Assessment Question: Is the man stupid, evil, both, or something else? Thesis: He is not stupid. He is not evil in the sense of personal malice. He is something more historically novel and institutionally corrosive: a techno-libertarian demolitionist who mistakes engineering intelligence for governing wisdom — a man who has spent three decades acquiring, building, and destroying institutions according to a single algorithm (identify inefficiency, slash personnel, declare victory, move on), and who has now applied that algorithm to the federal government, the public square, and the very idea of institutional continuity. He does not seek to rule. He seeks to reboot. And in the gap between the crash and the reboot, millions suffer. ...

Mike Johnson and the Problem of Bad Faith: A Scholarly Assessment Question: Is the man stupid, evil, both, or something else? Thesis: He is not stupid. He is not evil in the sense of personal malevolence. He is something more dangerous and more explicable: a true believer of above-average intelligence who has substituted a closed theological epistemology for empirical reasoning, and who has proven willing to abandon democratic norms and institutional integrity when they conflict with his eschatological politics. In short, he is a competent ideologue operating in bad faith — not because he is incapable of recognizing truth, but because he has trained himself to reject it when it threatens his worldview. ...

Peter Thiel and the Contrarian’s Revenge: A Scholarly Assessment Question: Is the man stupid, evil, both, or something else? Thesis: He is not stupid. He is not evil in the sense of personal malice. He is something more historically rooted and intellectually ambitious: a plutocratic philosopher-king who has concluded, after decades of reading Strauss, Girard, and the Gospels, that democracy is incompatible with the kind of technological civilization he wants to build — and who has spent his fortune and influence creating the intellectual, political, and surveillance infrastructure for a post-democratic future. He is not a populist demagogue. He is a techno-monarchist operating in plain sight — patient, erudite, and willing to wait a generation for his vision to mature. ...

Stephen Miller and the Architecture of Cruelty: A Scholarly Assessment Question: Is the man stupid, evil, both, or something else? Thesis: He is not stupid. He is not evil in the sense of personal sadism. He is something more precise and more historically recognizable: a technocratic ideologue of demographic anxiety — a man of above-average intelligence who has devoted his entire adult life to a single obsession (the reversal of America’s demographic change through immigration restriction) and who has proven willing to deploy any instrument of state power, including those that inflict deliberate suffering on families and children, to achieve it. He is not a monster who enjoys blood. He is an architect who draws blueprints for cruelty and then watches the construction proceed with bureaucratic satisfaction. In short, he is a racial anxiety technician operating in good faith to bad ends — which may be the most dangerous political type of all. ...