Month: September 2024

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy revealed on X early Thursday that a Russian missile struck a bulk carrier hauling Ukrainian wheat while sailing through the Black Sea en route to Egypt.

Russian missile against a wheat cargo bound for Egypt. Tonight, Russia launched a strike on an ordinary civilian vessel in the Black Sea right after it left Ukrainian territorial waters. Fortunately, there were no casualties, according to preliminary reports.

Ukraine is one of the key global food security guarantors. Domestic stability and normal life in dozens of countries around the world are dependent on the normal and unhindered operation of our food expert corridor.

Ukraine’s food deliveries to African and Middle Eastern countries are critical. We will continue to make every effort to safeguard our ports, the Black Sea, and food exports to global markets. This is Ukraine’s true priority—to protect life—and it should be the priority of all countries.

We are waiting for the world to react. Wheat and food security should never be targets for missiles.

Russian missile against a wheat cargo bound for Egypt. Tonight, Russia launched a strike on an ordinary civilian vessel in the Black Sea right after it left Ukrainian territorial waters. Fortunately, there were no casualties, according to preliminary reports.

Ukraine is one of… pic.twitter.com/nNCqNDVfJV

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 12, 2024

Reuters spoke to an industry source who said the missile hit the gain vessel overnight while traversing Romanian waters near the mouth of the Danube River in the Black Sea. 

Dmytro Pletenchuk, a spokesman for the Ukrainian navy, stated the vessel was in Ukraine’s grain corridor during the missile strike. 

“Kyiv was forced to set up a new export route in the Black Sea last year after Russia unilaterally terminated the Black Sea grain deal,” The Kyiv Independent noted,” adding, “Initially envisioned as a humanitarian corridor to allow the departure of ships stranded there since the start of the full-scale war, it has since grown into a full-blown trade route.” 

Data from Ukraine’s Infrastructure Ministry shows that the Eastern European country has exported over 64 metric tons of goods to 46 countries since the temporary Black Sea corridor became operational. Of this total, 43.5 million metric tons were ag goods shipped via commercial vessels through the Black Sea maritime shipping lane over the past year. 

Ukraine is known as the “breadbasket of Europe” because it’s one of the top grain exporters in the world. Its main crops include wheat, corn, soybeans, sunflower, barley, and potatoes. 

Global food prices via FAO Food Price Index. 

Any export disruptions could spark round two of food inflation. 

Authored by Ethan Watson via RealClearPolitics,

After yanking Joe Biden off the ticket with a giant vaudeville cane, Kamala Harris has breathed new life into the Democratic party. Kamala opened her campaign with the “politics of joy,” replete with twerking rappers, sassy X clapbacks, and quirky Doritos videos. But, after weeks of pressure from the media, Kamala has finally posted her stance on the issues facing America, and at the debate on Tuesday night, she dove deeper into her policies than ever before. Finally, Gen Z voters have the opportunity to do what everyone least expects from them: weigh each presidential candidate from a policy perspective.

Until now, I’ve been mystified as to why my generation, usually so quick to recognize inauthenticity, was falling for Kamala’s cotton candy campaign. But Gen Z voters were immediately smitten with Kamala, whose light, albeit vapid rhetoric provided a reprieve from the political mudslinging of the last eight years. She threw concerts and posted goofy videos. Instead of engaging in contentious discussions, Kamala supporters could quip “Brat Summer” while retweeting Mark Hamill. It was light and fun, and after years of ugly politics, even her blatant pandering was a nice change.

By spoon-feeding young voters inoffensive content, Harris deflected their attention from her flip-flopping on issues and pushing radical policies like an unrealized capital gains tax. Her proxies dodged questions on air, claiming that she was too busy to sit down for an interview. And most young voters supported Kamala, with 58.7% of voters 18-34 viewing her favorably after the DNC in August.

But Kamala’s actual ideas have been forced into the spotlight. As Harris gets serious, so should Gen Z.

I’ve seen firsthand my generation’s BS detectors in action. We know when we can skip a hokey motivational speaker at a company event or skim the “required” readings. We traverse career fairs, collecting swag and acting interested as phony recruiters try to convince us that their company isn’t a pyramid scheme. In other words, we don’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Now that Harris’ policies are in the open, we should treat her with the same scrutiny. If Gen Z is really dissatisfied with the direction the company is going, per a Spring 2024 Harvard Youth Poll, then perhaps we should consider the fact that portions of her brand new “Issues” page were copied from the Joe Biden campaign site. Remember him? He’s the one who was in charge – or at least who seemed in charge – when that Harvard poll was taken earlier this year. 

Additionally, 53% of Gen Z voters believe that there is a dire crisis happening on our southern border, a border that Kamala presided over as border czar. Do we really believe she’s the best candidate to solve that problem?

Another driving factor behind Gen Z’s discontent with the status quo is the economy. On that topic, Harris echoes Joe Biden’s policies. Harris proposes a $25,000 first-time homebuyer handout, doubling down on Biden’s $10,000 proposal. Harris’ policies also include expanding the Affordable Care Act, which has been the law of the land for the past 14 years (and passed while Joe Biden was Vice President). She touts her plan to raise the tax on long-term capital gains to 28% – in other words, 28% of what Gen Z makes in the stock market will go not to a home down payment but to the government. Do we really think that will help young people prosper?

I call on my generation to apply to Kamala Harris the same utility maximization we do in all areas of life. Now that she’s dropped the TikTok-and-vibes charade, we have the chance to think critically about whether Kamala represents the change to the status quo, or whether she’s just Joe Biden 2.0. It seems Kamala can buckle down to business when pressed. Can we?

Ethan Watson is a Young Voices contributor working towards a Master of Accounting degree at the University of Kansas. He holds dual undergraduate degrees in Accounting and Political Science with an eye toward law school in the near future. Follow him on X: @erwatson13.

Gold prices per ounce surpassed $2,500 USD for the first time ever in August 2024, setting a new all-time high.

The surge in gold value this year has largely been driven by increased central bank demand amidst an increasingly complicated geopolitical and financial landscape. A World Gold Council survey conducted in April 2024 found that 29% of central bank respondents intend to increase their gold reserves in the next 12 months.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the gold price per troy ounce in USD from 1989 to August 29, 2024, with the change in price labeled for each U.S. president’s term.

The figures come from the World Gold Council, who compile price data from ICE Benchmark Administration and the Shanghai Gold Exchange.

Gold Prices Surged During Recent Presidencies

Below, we show the price change in gold per troy ounce in USD between the start and end of each U.S. president’s term.

*For President Biden, the date of August 29th, 2024 was used for the ending gold price in calculations.

Gold has historically been seen as a safe-haven asset during times of geopolitical uncertainty and economic instability. While gold’s prices increased by over 50% under Trump’s presidency, and by another 37% during Biden’s, the greatest increase of 215% (since 1989) came during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Spurred by the 9/11 attacks and the geopolitical instability which followed, gold’s bull run during Bush’s presidency from 2001 to 2009 could’ve been even greater had the 2008 global financial crisis not occurred. Instead, fear of deflation and a flight to the safety of the U.S. dollar resulted in a 30% dip from the peak to trough of gold prices in 2008.

Events like 9/11, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Ukraine-Russia war have all contributed to significant increases in gold prices, as investors seek stability during turbulent times​.

Whether Donald Trump is reelected or Kamala Harris becomes the first female president of the U.S., Citigroup analysts forecast gold prices exceeding $3,000 by the end of 2024.

To learn more about gold’s recent performance on the markets, check out this graphic that shows the value of a gold bar in various sizes as of August 2024.

Via Eurasianet.org,

• Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin’s visit to Uzbekistan aimed to strengthen ties and promote Uzbekistan’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

• Uzbekistan maintained a cautious stance, prioritizing its strategic partnership with Russia but avoiding commitments on EAEU membership or specific joint projects.

• The visit resulted in minor agreements on rail transport, medicinal product labeling, and medical personnel training, with a protocol signed for the construction of nuclear reactors in Uzbekistan.

Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin’s two-day visit to Uzbekistan highlights the limits of the Kremlin’s geopolitical leverage these days. Mishustin arrived with high hopes of drawing Uzbekistan closer into Russia’s orbit, but he left with little of substance.

Uzbekistan and other Central Asian states have walked a fine line since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, striving to remain on the sidelines of the conflict without riling the Kremlin and provoking Russian leader Vladimir Putin into taking some sort of punitive action. Helping to keep Moscow happy is the fact that Central Asian states have acted as a backdoor trade conduit, tacitly helping Russian leaders soften the impact of Western sanctions, and keeping the Russian war effort going. 

Mishustin arrived in Uzbekistan on September 9 with a declared aim of securing Tashkent’s commitment to becoming a full member of the Moscow-dominated Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). “Uzbekistan’s participation in Eurasian integration can give additional advantages for business. First of all, thanks to the opening of new sales markets, the creation of conditions for fair competition,” the TASS news agency quoted Mishustin as saying during a September 9 meeting of the joint Russian-Uzbek governmental commission.

And unnamed experts cited by the Russia-based URA news agency said the main reason Moscow wants Uzbekistan to join EAEU boils down to population numbers: Russia is facing a demographic disaster exacerbated by already large, and constantly rising, wartime losses. Uzbekistan, meanwhile, has a young and rapidly growing population. Russia needs more bodies to ensure a stable economic future.

“Russia is interested in Uzbekistan’s accession to the EAEU because it is a country with a population of 35 million, and according to forecasts, by 2035 it will already have more than 40 million inhabitants,” URA quoted the expert as saying.

“The total population of the [Eurasian economic] union would exceed 200 million people [if Uzbekistan became a member]. For Russia, this is an opportunity to strengthen the combined weight of that side of the multipolar world that is being built around our country as a regional leader.”

At the joint commission meeting, Mishustin also expressed hope that the two countries could develop a venture to produce drones for “civilian” uses.

“We are exploring the possibilities of organizing the high-tech production of polymers, localizing the production of civilian unmanned aircraft systems and their components,” TASS quoted Mishustin as saying.

The suggestion raised eyebrows among some local observers, given that an entity in Kazakhstan has already come under US sanctions for supplying Russia with dual-use components, including parts for drones used against Ukrainian forces. 

Uzbek officials appeared to listen politely to Russian proposals, but provided no indication that they would go along with Moscow’s wishes. A statement issued by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s office following a September 10 meeting with the Russian prime minister offered the usual platitudes on the importance of the bilateral “strategic partnership” without mentioning the EAEU or specific joint projects. About the most specific the presidential statement got was an acknowledgement that “an exchange of views occurred on issues of mutual interest.”

The joint commission’s outcome the previous day was similarly modest. There was lots of discussion about boosting trade and investment and following up on joint projects agreed upon during Putin’s visit to Uzbekistan last May. But the talks produced few results. 

An Uzbek government statement noted that three relatively minor agreements were signed at the conclusion of the commission session, including one on accelerating the rail transport of agricultural products and another covering standardized labeling of medicinal products. The third item was a protocol on the training of medical personnel.

Perhaps the most significant development arising out of the visit was the signing of a protocol concerning implementation of an agreement signed back in May under which Russia pledged to build up to six low-power nuclear reactors to generate electricity in Uzbekistan. The protocol “will allow us to begin direct work on the construction site in the near future,” a report published by the Spot.uz new outlet quoted Otabek Amanov, a top Uzbek official overseeing the project, as saying. Uzbek officials say they hope the first reactor will be ready to go online within five years.

During the commission meeting, Mishustin expressed satisfaction with bilateral energy cooperation. “Our energy partnership is progressing successfully. Including the supply of natural gas, oil, and petroleum products from Russia to Uzbekistan,” Mishustin stated.

Uzbek officials have no reason to argue on that point. Uzbekistan is buying up Russian natural gas at a bargain-basement rate of $160 per thousand cubic meters (tcm), according to local media reports. By comparison, the Russian energy behemoth Gazprom sold China gas at an estimated rate of just over $286/tcm in 2023. The low purchase price of Russian gas helps explain why Uzbekistan, itself rich in gas reserves, has turned into a net importer of the blue fuel. Low-cost Russian supplies are enabling Uzbek leaders to offer domestic customers highly subsidized rates for gas consumption.

We already know that emission free or EV trucking isn’t a cost efficient endeavor, which is why many companies like Pepsi have done token purchases of a couple of EV semis, but are still using ICE 18 wheelers to get product to shelves. 

Today a new article from Reuters lays out the numbers behind why emission free trucking remains a fallacy: emissions-free trucks need to drop in price by up to 50% to compete with diesel models, according to a McKinsey study.

Currently, less than 2% of the EU’s heavy freight vehicles are electric or hydrogen-powered, but this must rise to 40% of new sales by 2030 to meet EU climate goals. Electric trucks cost 2.5-3 times more to produce than diesel ones, and logistics companies are reluctant to bear the higher costs, making this target challenging, the report says. 

McKinsey suggests electric truck prices should be no more than 30% higher than diesel models, requiring major battery advancements. 

Reuters writes that a 25% reduction in charging costs and 900,000 private charging points by 2035, needing a $20 billion investment, are also key to the EU’s CO2 strategy. Additionally, European truckmakers face competition from Chinese manufacturers, who have captured 20% of the bus market with cheaper products.

A co-author of the McKinsey study said: “I don’t think it’s impossible that this could actually happen in electric trucks over time.”

Recall we wrote earlier this year that demand for electric semis was plunging. 

“The economics just don’t work for most companies,” Robert Sanchez, the chief executive of Ryder, said in May. 

Ryder’s experience highlights the difficulties state and federal governments encounter in encouraging truckers to transition from polluting diesel rigs to zero-emissions vehicles, the report says.

It also indicates that significant improvements in battery weight, range, and charging times are necessary for battery-electric trucks to effectively compete with diesel rigs in the cost-sensitive freight industry.

Rakesh Aneja, head of eMobility at Daimler Truck North America, told Wall Street Journal: “Quite frankly, demand has not been as strong as what we would like.”

Authored by Wanjiru Njoya via The Mises Institute,

Many people were shocked when over 1,000 protesters were arrested in the UK and jailed for various offenses including “violent disorder” and stirring up racial hatred. Most shocking were the cases of those arrested for posting social media comments on the riots, despite not being present at the scene and there being no evidence that anybody who joined in the riots had read any of their comments.

In societies which uphold the value of individual liberty, the only purpose of the criminal law should be to restrain and punish those who commit acts of aggression against other people or their property.

The criminal law should not be used to prevent people from “hating” others or to force them to “love” each other. In announcing yet another raft of laws “to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that “During these challenging times, we will continue to show up for each other. We are making it clear: love will always have the last word in New York.” To that end, she introduced “legislation to significantly expand eligibility for hate crime prosecution.”

Attempts to promote love between different racial or religious groups in society, for example, by charging people with stirring up “hate” when they protest against immigration, misunderstands the role of the criminal law. Threats to public order entail violating the person or property of others—as happens in a violent riot—not merely the exhibition of “hate” towards others. Yet increasingly, public order offenses are linked to hate speech or hate crimes.

Laws prohibiting hate speech and hate crimes typically define “hate” as hostility based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Often, hostility is understood simply as words that offend others. For example, in the UK, the Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending “a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” The Online Safety Act 2023 targets illegal content online including both “inciting violence” and the publication of “racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses.” Conduct online includes writing posts or publishing blogs or articles on websites.

Given that inciting violence is already a crime—“conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection”—there seems to be no discernible purpose in adding the concept of “hate” to such crimes. To give an example, writing “burn down the store” on social media might be seen as inciting violence, but writing “burn down the Muslim store” in the same circumstances would be categorized as a hate crime. Arson (actually burning down the store) is a crime, but based on the racial or religious identity of the store owner arson is deemed to be a “worse” crime—a hate crime—even though the harm in both cases and the loss suffered by store owners who are victims of arson does not vary based purely on their race or religion.

Therefore, no “hateful conduct” laws are needed to further “criminalize” what is already a crime. The conclusion is inescapable that the only goal of these types of “hate” laws is to create a special category of crime based entirely on the identity of the victim. Identity politics is now part of criminal law. “Hate” based on race or religion is now a priority in criminal law enforcement with resources increasingly diverted towards it. For example, New York has devoted a budget of $60 million to “fight hate.”

Events in the UK over the past month chillingly illustrate the consequences of an identity-based approach to law enforcement. In the ongoing police purge of rioters, those who wrote “hate speech” posts on social media platforms were charged with “inciting racial hatred” and sentenced to prison terms of up to two to three years. Far from fighting against “hate,” this is likely only to further fuel resentment and racial antagonism.

Free speech and the first amendment

The U.S. has so far avoided going down this socially destructive path, like the UK has, owing to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The importance of the first amendment in thwarting attempts to outlaw “hate speech” can be seen in New York’s Assembly Bill A7865A (2021-2022), which provides that humiliating or vilifying anyone on social media based on their identity is hateful conduct and, therefore, illegal. The bill requires social media networks to report “hateful conduct on their platform,” and defines hateful conduct as “the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” This attempt to regulate “hateful conduct” is a clear restriction of free speech, and it was predictably opposed by free speech groups on grounds that it violates the first amendment.

In linking criminal law to the protection of property rights, Murray Rothbard argues that “incitement” is an element of free speech. Under the principle of free will, no one should claim that the reason he committed arson (a crime against the property of another) was that he read a post on social media saying “burn down the store.” The arsonist would be responsible for his own crime. He may have read the post but the choice to go out and commit the crime was his own. Rothbard explains:

Should it be illegal, we may next inquire, to “incite to riot”’? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: “Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!” and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. “Inciting to riot,” therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime.

Rothbard adds that much would, of course, depend on the context: “there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot.”

One of the British people in jail for social media posts wrote on Facebook that “Every man and his dog should smash the f—k out of Britannia hotel,” which was a hotel well known for housing immigrants. The writer of the post—a 28-year-old with no notable following—was not himself present at the riots, nor was there any reason to think those present at the riots had read his post or intended to follow his exhortation. In that sense, he seems to have been nothing more than a “soap-box orator” offering commentary on the riots from the safety and comfort of his armchair. Yet he was charged with “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending thereby to stir up racial hatred” and jailed for 20 months.

That social media commentary is now treated in this way as a reason to jail people for “racial hatred” represents a grave threat to individual liberty, and illustrates the folly of criminalizing “hate.”

China has shrugged off accusations issued by the United States this week that it is directly supporting Russia’s ‘war machine’. US deputy secretary of state Kurt Campbell told reporters Wednesday that China is providing more than just dual use items, but instead is transferring “component pieces of a very substantial effort on the part of China to help sustain, build and diversify various elements of the Russian war machine.” This allegedly included submarine and missile technology.

On Thursday, Chinese state media confirmed the start of joint China-Russia naval patrols in the Pacific. Global Times says that Chinese warships and warplanes have arrived in the Peter the Great Bay and Vladivostok just ahead of the exercises, which will run through September.

But it was Russia which verbally hit back directly against Washington accusations in a new, ominous warning. Russia and China could “combine their potential” if faced with aggression, Moscow’s foreign ministry asserted.

“I would like to remind you that Moscow and Beijing will respond to ‘double containment’ by the United States with ‘double counteraction’,” ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

While the two powerful countries as yet have no formal military treaty, President Putin recently declared Russia and China to be “allies in every sense of the word” while Xi has touted the “no limits friendship”. 

Zakharova in the latest explosive remarks (issued in a Wednesday briefing) spoke about combining forces. Here are the words in their full context:

“It is clear that both Russia and China will react to the emergence of additional and very significant missile threats, and their reaction will be far from being political, which has also been repeatedly confirmed by the two countries.

“Our relations are not directed against third countries… and double counteraction does not contradict this. This is a defensive position, this is not an initiative to target other countries.

“But if an aggressive policy of attack is being implemented against us from one centre, why don’t we combine our potential and give an appropriate rebuff?” 

It seems that among the original questions from reporters which triggered this response was an inquiry related to the possibility that the US will deploy US Typhon mid-range missiles to Japan.

While reports have said these will be present on a temporary basis as part of drills, it remains the missiles were banned under the now defunct INF Treaty. China has of course vehemently condemned this, and independent analysts have pointed out it would be akin to China placing banned missiles capable of hitting Florida and the US Gulf coast in Cuba or Mexico.

In many ways, these recent displays of close coordination between Beijing and Moscow are but more blowback from round after round of US sanctions and punitive actions aimed at both countries.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Turkish President Erdogan has attempted over the years to present himself as the voice of the international Muslim community, or Ummah, most recently by calling for an Islamic alliance against Israel. His strong rhetoric about the latest Israeli-Hamas war has earned him the praise of many and also resulted in sharp responses from Israelis, which in turn feed into the perception that he’s seeking to form. All his tough talk is just pure demagoguery, however, since he isn’t willing to go to war with Israel.

 

The Palestinians claim that over 40,000 of their own have been killed in this nearly year-long conflict that most of their supporters consider to be a genocide. The living conditions in Gaza are atrocious, almost all of the strip has been damaged or destroyed by Israeli bombs, and Egypt continues to keep its border closed to prevent the outflow of refugees into its territory. By all indications, it’s more than a little late for anyone to suggest forming a multilateral alliance against Israel, whether they’re really sincere or not.  

Erdogan is a very clever politician and therefore predictably has a few tricks up his sleeve for proposing this so belatedly.

First and foremost, he wants to reaffirm Turkiye’s image as the historical protector of the Ummah from back during its Ottoman days, hence why he’s calling so loudly for forming such an Islamic alliance.

The second objective is to build upon the aforesaid in order to position Turkiye atop the regional military hierarchy in the minds of those who take his proposal seriously.

Third, he also knows very well that no Muslim country will voluntarily subordinate itself to Turkiye’s implied military hegemony, especially not the Gulf Kingdoms. Their rejection of his proposal or at least public indifference to it can then be spun as passing the buck along to them for supposedly “failing to save Palestine”. The fourth reason is related to the preceding one and concerns the public pressure that Turkiye is coming under from some to cut off Azerbaijan’s oil exports to Israel via Georgia and Turkiye.

Ankara owns neither the pipeline nor the oil that transits through it so any interference with these shipments would be a blatant violation of international law and a stab in its Azeri brother’s back. Its allied relations with Baku mean that Turkish officials can’t pressure their counterparts on this, let alone publicly condemn them for continuing to literally fuel the Israeli economy, but having the public see their lack of response to Erdogan’s proposed Islamic alliance might take some of the heat off of him on this.

And finally, the last goal that he’s seeking to advance is to wage psychological warfare on Israelis by making them fear the grand strategic consequences of continuing the conflict and thus ideally inspiring them to ramp up their protests to stop it, though this could also backfire. By exacerbating their existing siege mindset, he risks some reconsidering whether it’s worth ending the conflict now if all their country’s goals have yet to be achieved seeing as how this Islamic alliance is already forming anyhow.

Altogether, observers shouldn’t forget that Erdogan knows how to play to the Ummah’s crowds, so little of what he says about his plans against Israel should ever be taken seriously. There’s always an ulterior motive or several behind it like in this case as was explained. His strong rhetoric leads to extreme dopamine bursts from those who think that he’s being sincere, but the rush will inevitably wear off once they realize that he’s not, and some might in turn think less of him afterwards.

Authored by J. Peder Zane via RealClearPolitics,

Like a Greek chorus, my Republican friends warn that “the America we’ve known and loved will be gone” if Kamala Harris is elected president. They are half right. Neither Harris nor Donald Trump is seeking to restore the traditional values and ideals of freedom and opportunity that have made our country exceptional. Both candidates reject our foundational ideal of a self-reliant people in favor of a politics of entitlement and grievance.

Just as hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue, the candidates pay lip service to our traditional value of opportunity – the freedom to see how far your talents might take you. That rhetoric still resonates in the American psyche. Harris speaks of an opportunity economy; Trump vows to bring more jobs back to our shores. But those words are window-dressing in their larger message that assumes success hinges less on talent and ambition than the corrupt ability to game a rigged system. Transforming conspiracy theory into conventional wisdom, both argue that if things aren’t working out, the fault is in malign dark forces, not ourselves.

Neither candidate seeks to unleash the animal spirits that made America the richest and freest country in the history of the world. Instead of inspiring us to fight for ourselves, they promise to be our champions, using tariffs, tax credits, and other powers of the state to solve our problems for us. In their view, America has become a nation of creditors owed vast debts by the government. Everyone, except maybe Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, are due reparations.

They are telling us this because it is what we want to hear. Growing numbers of Americans don’t want to take responsibility for their circumstances. They seek to blame someone else and demand that others improve their lot.

This mindset has not sprung from the ether; politicians have long promised voters a free lunch. It is not unmoored from reality; there are powerful forces that can limit individual effort. But in recent years, these elements have risen to the forefront of American politics – especially after the Great Recession of 2007-09 delivered a crippling blow to our historic belief in a brighter future.

Since then, Democrats have spoken to these fears through an identity politics that casts large swaths of the population – especially minorities and women who together constitute the vast majority of people – as victims.

Rejecting Ronald Reagan’s can-do vision of our country as a shining city on a hill, Trump’s grievance-based populism reflects the triumph of this view across the land. Yes, Americans are angry at each other, but our real beef seems to be with the entire world that refuses to give us milk and honey.

Sadly, this view seems much more prevalent among native-born citizens with deep roots in our country rather than the immigrants who flock here because hard work still pays off. Tellingly, the ability of newcomers to make a better life here, to gain admission to top schools, to build and run thriving businesses, or just find work that pays a decent wage, is largely dismissed in our culture of complaint.

The dangers of this culture are manifold. History shows that government cannot fix our problems. For all their limits, free markets and a by-the-bootstraps mentality have been the great engines of our prosperity, not state and federal programs that can only redistribute the profits of labor. The problems roiling Europe show what happens when countries run out of other people’s money. That’s the canary in the coal mine.

Ironically, victimhood and entitlement make it almost impossible to fix our problems. Massive spending, first by Trump (in fairness, as a response to COVID) and then by Biden (to buy votes and create a “legacy”), fueled the inflation that voters rail against. Yet, neither Harris nor Trump are offering serious plans to reduce our deficit, much less our soaring debt. Calls for sacrifice are off the table.

Americans are not facing a choice this November between two competing visions, but about the pace of our decline. Harris would turbo-charge the Biden administration’s push to make government the be-all and end-all of our lives, perhaps even completing our transformation from a dynamic engine of growth into a tired welfare state like those in Western Europe. This will not end the good life in America; there are plenty of happy Belgians. Well-educated professionals – the What me, Worry? liberals – are thriving, insulated in their gated communities and high-rise buildings from the consequences of the leftwing policies they support that are hollowing out the working class. But year by year, Harris will continue to deliver death blows to American exceptionalism.

Trump would slow these changes, reducing regulatory strangleholds here and there without fundamentally changing the course we are on. He won’t and can’t do that because, as necessary as a correction may be, the voters don’t want it.

This sad state of affairs recalls the journalist H.L. Mencken’s observation more than a century ago that “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

J. Peder Zane is a RealClearInvestigations editor and columnist. He previously worked as a book review editor and book columnist for the News & Observer (Raleigh), where his writing won several national honors. Zane has also worked at the New York Times and taught writing at Duke University and Saint Augustine’s University.

Authored by Joseph Lord, Madalina Vasiliu and Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

With its 19 electoral votes, Pennsylvania is shaping up to be the most critical swing state in the 2024 election for both major candidates.

In 2016, Pennsylvania—along with the rest of the Rust Belt—slotted into former President Donald Trump’s column, delivering him a sweeping Electoral College win. In 2020, the state swung to Biden.

Pennsylvania carries the most electoral votes of any state considered a swing state. The next closest are North Carolina and Georgia, with 16 electoral votes apiece.

The Epoch Times spoke to some of the Keystone State’s voters, traveling across eastern and southern Pennsylvania and the outskirts of Philadelphia. Here’s what they told us.

Several Pennsylvanians indicated frustration with the current election, and the two-party system more broadly.

Susan Diehl, a gas station employee in Newburg, seemed jaded with politics.

“Why can’t they just tell the truth about whatever they’re going to do or not do? I always feel that politicians, all of them, lie just to get elected,” she said.

The Epoch Times found mixed signs of support for both candidates.

Several independents indicated they have frustrations with Trump and his trademark communication style, which they described as too abrasive.

Many said they were ultimately undecided, and expressed dissatisfaction with both candidates.

Dave Brueggeman, a 60-year-old Army veteran from York, hasn’t made a decision yet.

Brueggeman, who described himself as “a Democrat, but … not the kind of Democrat today,” said that he had initially planned to vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was running as an independent before recently dropping out and backing Trump.

Following Kennedy’s departure from the race, Brueggeman said, “I’m not sure about Trump, I’m just not sure. I haven’t really made up my mind yet completely.”

Brueggeman thinks Harris will ultimately win the race—a situation he said would dissatisfy many, but which he blamed on the two-party system.

Brueggeman said he hopes both candidates will pursue Social Security reforms, specifically in changing the rules around how much income Social Security recipients can make each month.

Lawrence Clark, a 52-year-old from Mt. Wolf, says he’s also still weighing his options, but the lifelong Democrat said one thing is certain: he won’t be voting for Harris.

“I don’t think she’s as qualified as Trump. Trump already has experience,” Clark said.

Clark was among those released from prison under Trump’s First Step Act, which allowed inmates to reduce their sentence by accumulating “good behavior” credits.

“The economy was better when [Trump] was in office,” Clark said.

He says he’s hopeful that the next president will continue to pursue criminal justice reform, and believes Trump will do so.

Marco Ceo, a 45-year-old from eastern Pennsylvania, says he’s leaning toward voting for Harris and that he dislikes Trump’s “edge.”

On the other hand, Ceo indicated ambivalence about Harris’s executive experience, noting it’s one area in which Trump has Harris beat.

“I think she has some experience there. And clearly the Republican candidate has experience being the former president, but … I like inspiration more than bullying,” Ceo said.

These considerations, Ceo said, have left him “really torn” about who to vote for.

Ceo was critical of the “non-stop assault with campaign messaging” directed at independents in crucial swing states like him. The ads, he said, don’t respect the intelligence of voters.

He hopes that the candidates will look more into rising tuition costs, which he says have taken a toll on his family’s finances.

Among those more open to Harris, some expressed a feeling of resignation.

Zach Miller, a 43-year-old from Lancaster, said that he’s primarily motivated to vote against Trump, rather than a preference for Harris.

“She doesn’t evoke any strong emotion from my being whatsoever,” the Pennsylvanian said of the vice president.

Mikki Breitmos was once a labor union Democrat. She left the party 18 years ago, however, and now has decided on Trump.

“I think that he is more of a businessman than a politician, and that’s why I voted for him the last time,” she said.

She expressed hope that Trump will tone down the rhetoric—and expressed optimism that former First Lady Melania Trump could help on that front.

“I feel that maybe with Melania’s influence, he would direct himself away from that and then make the country whole again,” Breitmos said.

Michael Nicolazzo, a 92-year-old Korean War veteran, has seen many presidential elections come and go in his lifetime. But his first time voting in one came in 2016, when he cast his ballot for Trump.

Nicolazzo lost his pension due to a clerical error and later a fire that destroyed his service records, but says he hopes Trump will be able to help during a second term.

“Nobody’s helped me. And I think Trump could be the only one, because he likes veterans,” Nicolazzo said.