History, schmistory — MAGA has its eyes on the future
Advertisement
However, if the issues that MAGA Americans find most vexing are either solved or substantially improved (by data and objective sources), their continued contempt for history will be justified and little attention will be given to precedent. In this scenario, all established American institutions will be in some form of jeopardy.
I attribute the continued success of the MAGA ideology and its practices to a desire of many to deal with problems simply and in a straightforward manner. I also contend that this methodology is itself too simple and lacks the depth needed to solve complex problems.
Advertisement
As our Framers taught us all those years ago, successful outcomes are the result of intelligent, detailed, and informed compromise, which, sadly, is in short supply these days.
Peter Vangsness
Medway
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Gen Z and millennials push into politics
A growing number of Gen Z and millennial Americans are seeking elected office — campaigning on the issues that matter most to them and their peers. Why it matters: The 119th Congress is the third oldest in U.S. history, and both of America's most recent presidents set records as the oldest ever inaugurated. As leadership skews older, young candidates from both parties are running to get their voices heard in local, state and federal government. The big picture: 74 millennials and one Gen Z-er were elected to the 119th Congress in November — making up 16% of the House and 8% of the Senate. Members of Gen Z also entered state and local office races. Case in point: Thousands of young progressives have expressed interest in running for office since Zohran Mamdani 's New York City mayoral primary last week. Between Tuesday's primary and Friday afternoon, about 2,700 people signed up with Run for Something, an organization that supports young Democrats running for down-ballot office. Mamdani's race modeled "what will make young people such compelling candidates in the future," says Amanda Litman, Run for Something co-founder and president. "A real fluency with the internet, a real strong-held value system, the ability to be authentically themselves." Zoom in: If elected in November, 33-year-old Mamdani would be the youngest among the mayors currently serving in the 50 largest American cities, according to an Axios analysis. He'd also be New York City's second-youngest mayor, after Hugh J. Grant in the late 19th century. His campaign — built more for TikTok than TV — resonated with young voters around the city and brought them to the polls. The other side: Run Gen Z, an organization that backs young conservatives running for office, is galvanizing the next generation of leaders on the right. The group has helped politicians like 22-year-old Wyatt Gable, who was elected to North Carolina's House of Representatives in November, and 26-year-old Amber Hulse, who just won a seat in South Dakota's senate. Gable told the Washington Post one of his priorities is implementing home economics education for high school students so they can graduate with practical skills, like financial literacy. The intrigue: Candidate age is becoming an increasingly important issue for American voters. 67% of U.S. adults in a February YouGov poll said they believed maximum age limits should be imposed on elected officials. Democratic respondents were more likely than Republicans to support age limits. Reality check: Americans 62 and older still run for office at much higher rates than 18- to 25-year-olds, Tufts' Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement notes.
CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
Op-ed: It's time for U.S. to treat rare earth metals as instruments of geopolitical power. China already does
In April 2025, China imposed new export controls on seven rare earth elements and the permanent magnets derived from them — materials that form the foundation of modern life and modern warfare. Fighter jets, missiles, electric vehicles, drones, wind turbines, and even data centers rely on high-performance magnets made from these critical minerals. By restricting their flow, Beijing did not just flex its industrial muscle, it revealed America's and the rest of the world's dangerous vulnerability. China's latest actions show their readiness and ability to weaponize American and global dependence. This is not a new challenge. The United States has known for over 15 years that its critical mineral supply chains were too concentrated, too fragile, and too exposed to Chinese leverage and control. And yet, across Democratic and Republican administrations, we have failed to respond with urgency or coherence. Now, the consequences of those failures have grabbed us by the neck and are cascading across our commercial and defense sectors. Following the London talks, Washington and Beijing announced on Friday a new trade framework under which China will resume approving export licenses for rare earths over the next six months. U.S. officials have publicly extolled the breakthrough — but have offered few details about what was given in return. That leaves major questions unanswered: What were the U.S. trade-offs? How will the deal be enforced? And what happens when the six months are up? Skepticism is high. Ford recently halted production at its Chicago plant due to a magnet shortage — underscoring that even short-term supply interruptions have real consequences. Paper agreements are not supply chain solutions. Without transparency, timely approvals, and long-term planning, this could easily become another diplomatic cycle of one step forward, two steps back. Even this limited reprieve carries risks. Dozens of companies in Europe and North America have described China's export license process as highly invasive — requiring firms to submit detailed production data, end-use applications, facility images, customer names, and transaction histories. Some applicants have been denied for not providing photographs or documentation of their end users. Executives say the process amounts to "official information extraction." While firms are advised not to share sensitive IP, omitting key details can mean indefinite delays. For companies in defense supply chains, the implications are alarming: valuable commercial intelligence could be used to map competitors, disrupt pricing, or advance Chinese substitutes. This isn't just licensing — it's competitive surveillance. And until the U.S. builds secure, independent capacity across the critical minerals supply chain, it remains exposed to both disruption and data risk. This vulnerability did not happen overnight. Many have been watching this slow-motion train wreck for years. In 2010, China cut off rare earth exports to Japan during a maritime dispute, a clear warning shot the U.S. observed but brushed off. In 2014, the Obama administration won a WTO case against China's export restrictions but wrongly assumed that legal success would deter further manipulation. The first Trump administration identified rare earths as critical but notably exempted them from 2018 China tariffs, perhaps an unspoken acknowledgment of U.S. dependence. Biden took the most structured approach to date: Executive Order 14017, the Critical Minerals Working Group, and funding from the IIJA and IRA. Strategic partnerships like the Minerals Security Partnership emerged. But progress was slow, hampered by permitting delays and uneven ally commitments. The second Trump administration has returned with more aggressive measures, invoking Section 232, activating the Defense Production Act, and proposing major funding boosts in FY2026. A National Energy Dominance Council now coordinates efforts. Yet these measures, like China's six-month reprieve, still fall short of dislodging Beijing's grip. And crucially, the defense sector remains cut off, with no such licensing window available. The recent G7 summit in Canada underscored the global stakes. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen directly accused China of "weaponizing" its control over key materials like rare earths, calling for a united G7 response. The result: a G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan. Though China was not mentioned by name, the subtext was unmistakable. The plan commits G7 members to raise ESG and traceability standards for key resources; mobilize capital for new projects in critical mineral mining and processing; and cooperate on innovation in recycling, substitution, and refining technologies. Predictably, Beijing reacted with fury. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the plan as "a pretext" for protectionism, claiming the G7 was instigating confrontation out of fear of losing market share. Brussels is now signaling that trade negotiations with Beijing are effectively stalled, so the odds of Chinese retaliation — particularly against the EU — are rising. If China doubles down, it risks pushing the EU, Japan, South Korea, and India more tightly into Washington's orbit — precisely what Beijing hopes to avoid. The raw numbers are staggering. China accounts for roughly 70% of global rare earth mining but over 90% of refining capacity. It produces 92% of the world's neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets — used in everything from submarines to Teslas. This dominance is no accident. China subsidized processing, focused on global acquisitions across the supply chain, and scales up production much faster than the West can approve and issue permits for a single mine. U.S. sites like MP Materials' Mountain Pass and Round Top remain incomplete without downstream processing. The DoD and DOE have offered grants, and the FY2026 Trump budget looks to expand U.S. mining capacity and secure access to critical minerals. But all this remains dwarfed by China's head start and longtime industrial command-and-control of the sector. China moved early and decisively into Africa and Latin America, partnering with governments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bolivia, and Chile; investing in ports, rails, and refining infrastructure. In contrast, U.S. efforts and engagement on these sets of issues has been piecemeal and values-forward, prioritizing transparency and governance, important issues indeed, but delivering limited momentum of the critical mineral issues. Even recent MOUs with Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo remain, for now, symbolic, hindered by conflict and instability in those countries. The London talks and recent trade deal progress bought time. But time without a strategy is not fruitful. China's licensing regime remains intact, its data demands unabated. The defense sector remains shut out. Meanwhile, congressional threats to rescind clean energy and industrial policy funding could stall rare-earth projects just as they gain traction. This is a decisive moment. China is betting that America's internal divisions — between labor, industry, environmentalists, tribal nations, and political factions — will prevent the kind of unified, sustained effort needed to compete. They may be right. The U.S. needs to proves them wrong. The United States must now treat critical minerals not as commodities, but as instruments of geopolitical power. China already does. Escaping its grip will require more than mine permits and short-term funding. It demands a coherent, long-term strategy to build a complete supply chain that includes not only domestic capabilities but also reliable allies and partners. From mining and refining to magnet production and recycling, every link must be strengthened through targeted investment, permitting reform, and strategic coordination. A successful and sustainable policy requires commitment from one presidency to the next. Nor can the U.S. afford to engage allies and partners only rhetorically. Countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, and Indonesia (among others) need sustained partnerships backed by financing, technology transfer, and critical infrastructure investments, not just our lectures on governance. The six-month export reprieve from China is not a solution — it is a stress test. It reveals whether the U.S. can finally focus and act, or whether it will retreat again into complacency. Beijing is betting it will be the latter. Washington must respond with urgency, unity, and a strategy equal to the scale of the challenge. There is still time, but not much. —
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After criticism from MAGA world, Amy Coney Barrett delivers for Trump
WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump reveled in a major Supreme Court victory that curbed the ability of judges to block his policies nationwide, he had special praise for one of the justices: Amy Coney Barrett. 'I want to thank Justice Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly,' he said at a White House press conference soon after Friday's ruling. Barrett's majority opinion in the 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, which at least temporarily revived Trump's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship, is a major boost to an administration that has been assailed by courts around the country for its broad and aggressive use of executive power. It also marks an extraordinary turnaround for Barrett's reputation among Trump's most vocal supporters. Just a few months ago, she faced vitriolic criticism from MAGA influencers and others as she sporadically voted against Trump, including a March decision in which she rejected a Trump administration attempt to avoid paying U.S. Agency for International Development contractors. CNN also reported that Trump himself had privately complained about Barrett. That is despite the fact that she is a Trump appointee with a long record of casting decisive votes in a host of key cases in which the court's 6-3 conservative majority has imposed itself, most notably with the 2022 ruling that overturned the abortion rights landmark Roe v. Wade. One of those outspoken critics, Trump-allied lawyer Mike Davis, suggested that the pressure on Barrett had the desired effect. 'Sometimes feeling the heat helps people see the light,' he said in a text message. Quickly U-turning, MAGA influencers on Friday praised Barrett and turned their anger on liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson instead. They seized upon language in Barrett's opinion in which she gave short shrift to Jackson's dissenting opinion, in which the President Joe Biden appointee characterized the ruling as an 'existential threat to the rule of law.' Barrett responded by accusing Jackson of a 'startling line of attack' that was based on arguments 'at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.' Jack Posobiec, a conservative firebrand who a few months ago called Barrett a 'DEI judge,' immediately used similar language against Jackson, who is the first Black woman to serve on the court. In an appearance on Real America's Voice, a right-wing streaming channel, he call Jackson an 'autopen hire' in reference to the unsubstantiated allegation from conservatives that Biden's staff was responsible for many of his decisions. He then described Barrett as 'one of the nicest people. She's not some flame-throwing conservative up there.' It is not just the birthright citizenship case in which the Trump administration has claimed victory at the Supreme Court in recent months. The court, often with the three liberal justices in dissent, has also handed Trump multiple wins on emergency applications filed at the court, allowing various policies that were blocked by lower courts to go into effect. In such cases, the court does not always list exactly how each justice voted, but Barrett did not publicly dissent, for example, when the court allowed Trump to quickly deport immigrants to countries they have no connection to or ended temporary legal protections for 500,000 immigrants from four countries. Barrett defenders dismiss suggestions she would be influenced by negative comments from MAGA world, with Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, saying her ruling that limited nationwide injunctions simply shows her independent qualities as a judge. 'It should reinforce the sense that she's her own justice and she's committed to giving legal answers to legal questions. We shouldn't be looking for political answers to political questions,' he said. Barrett, via a Supreme Court spokeswoman, did not respond to a request for comment. More broadly, legal experts said that in the Supreme Court term that just ended, Barrett showed that on many traditional conservative issues she is 'solidly to the right,' noted Anthony Kreis, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. There were fewer examples of her going her own way than in the previous term, when which she staked out her own path in some significant cases. On Friday alone, she was part of a conservative 6-3 majority in three of the five rulings, including the birthright citizenship case. The others saw the court rule in favor of religious conservatives who objected to LGBTQ story books in elementary schools and uphold a Texas restriction on adult-content websites. 'I don't think we can say she was ever drifting left, but she was occupying a center-right position on the court that occasionally made her a key swing vote,' he added. 'This term's docket at the end just wasn't that.' One notable wrinkle in the birthright citizenship case is that Barrett, as the most junior justice in the majority, would not have been expected to write it. Often, Chief Justice John Roberts, who gets to assign cases when he is in the majority, will write such rulings himself. Carolyn Shapiro, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, said the assignment suited Barrett, who is known for her expertise on legal procedure. But she also wondered if Roberts might have considered the impact of the complaints against Barrett and wanted to 'give her a place to shine from the perspective of the right.' Even if that were a consideration in Roberts' thinking, Shapiro added, 'I don't see much evidence that she is doing things that she wouldn't have done if not for the criticism she received.' This article was originally published on
