December 2025

IT’S NOT AMERICAN:

2025 was a political disaster for MAGA: And 2026 could be even worse. (Justin Glawe, Dec 17, 2025, Public Notice)

From the Epstein files, to the economy, to the deadly military airstrikes on alleged drug boats in international waters, Trump and his entire administration are engaged in a desperate battle against the truth at the end of politically disastrous year for the MAGA movement.


But the lies aren’t really working anymore, and polls reflect this. Against the backdrop of a sluggish economy that’s been made worse by his own policies, Trump is less popular than he’s ever been. Instead of actually doing something to combat stubborn inflation and stagnant job growth, the president and his surrogates are just trying to lie their way out of it.

Meanwhile, despite having power in both the House and the Senate, congressional Republicans have failed to accomplish anything of note since the passage of Trump’s (also deeply unpopular) “Big Beautiful Bill.” Right now, they’re doing nothing to prevent healthcare premiums from rising for 21 million Americans when enhanced Obamacare subsidies expire at the end of this month.

CIVILIZATION IS ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMAGO DEI:

Western Civilization: Rooted in Dignity & Love (Bradley J. Birzer|, December 17th, 2025, The Imaginative Conservative)

We can trace the desire to understand the universal quality and dignity of the human person as far back as our very origin as a Western people. While someone might justly quibble with me on the exact moment of Western genesis, I happily and confidently turn to the development of philosophy and ethics in the Greek-Persian town of Miletus. There, a number of men gathered and debated the origins of humanity.

They asked two fundamental questions, each trying to get at the nature of our diversity within our universality. First, they asked: Are we and our essence earth, water, wind, or fire? That is, is there an “Urstoff—that is a primary substance that holds us all together? Second, though, and equally important: Are we trapped in the cycles of the world: life, middle age, and death; or spring, summer, fall, winter? And, if a God exists, does he share in the Urstoff with us, and can He help us escape the cycles of the world? While the Greeks didn’t find answers to any of these profound questions, Heraclitus’ definition of our Urstoff—”fire”—became a universal way of understanding the human person. The word Heraclitus employed was LOGOS, a Greek word that meant fire, spirit, Word, reason, and imagination. Throughout the Hellenic and, especially, the Hellenistic periods, many of the Greeks—Zeno, Cleanthnes, and the Stoics especially—adopted the LOGOS as their own. To them, it bridged the world between the God and all men. Each person, it seems, was a singular manifestation of the universal principle. As such, each person was connected to every other person through the God.

Virgil, Cicero, and the Romans took this to its logical conclusion. Virgil, in Eclogue 4, written roughly a half-century before the birth of Christ, predicted that the God would marry a Virgin, and she would conceive a child who would usher in golden age and, through the merits of the father, erase sin from the world. Just as seriously, Cicero, in On the Laws, proclaimed Reason as the link between all men and the God. What is there, he asked, more divine than Reason? As such, all good men and the God live in the cosmopolis, the city of the universal.

Let’s take this argument even farther. We can immerse ourselves in the ancient texts of Western civilization—the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid—and look for proof of racism (that is, judging another person by the color of his skin), and our search will be totally in vain. Judging a person by the color of one’s skin—a grave sin, to be sure—simply did not exist in the ancient West. It is a modern phenomenon, an accident of history, not something rooted in the Western tradition. As horrific as it is, it came with modernity, not with the West.

THE REFORMATION ROLLS ON:

The Jews’ time of miracles (Samuel Rubinstein, 12/19/25, Englesberg Ideas)

It is not hard to see why non-Protestant Christians thought 1 and 2 Maccabees bore the mark of revelation: the martyrdoms (including the elephant-slayer Eleazar’s) prefigured Christ on the Cross, and the wars gave them succour in their own battles with heathen enemies, whether Saracen, Magyar, or Dane. For Jews, however, the story posed a problem. It was difficult to celebrate the ancient recovery of a homeland when that homeland had since been lost, or the consecration of a temple that the Romans were later to destroy. Hanukkah was a celebration of Jewish cultural and national independence: it did not fit the needs and realities of a scattered people. The festival in diaspora had to be rethought and redefined. The Talmud made popular a story that does not appear in the books of Maccabees: the miracle of the oil, which Jews commemorate by lighting the Hanukkiah. There was a shift in the meaning of Hanukkah, as Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks put it, from a celebration of ‘military power’ to one of ‘spiritual strength’.

But the more martial themes of the Maccabees story resurfaced in Jewish thought, much as they once had been put to use by Ælfric.

LIKE THEY LEARNED NOTHING FROM THE ’60s-’70s:

The UK Becomes a Case Study in How Not to Fix a Floundering Economy (John Phelan, December 18, 2025, Daily Economy)

Public sector workers were rewarded for supporting Labour with a £9.4 billion pay hike — 42.9 percent of the alleged “black hole” — while the perpetually cash-hungry National Health Service received £1.5 billion. To fund this, Reeves raised taxes by £40 billion — the largest increase since 1993 — including a two-percentage-point hike in employer NI contributions. She denied breaking her pre-election promise, noting that the employee share was unchanged, but this convinced no one. Overall, taxes were forecast to reach “a historic high” as a share of GDP.

Incredibly, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR, Britain’s version of the Congressional Budget Office) projected that Reeves’ budget would push government spending, taxes, borrowing, inflation, and interest rates up, while driving employment, disposable income, and GDP growth down.

COMEDY BINDS US:

Laughter regulation in solitary and social contexts varies across emotion regulation strategies (Vanessa Mitschke, Annika Ziereis, Sriranjani Manivasagam & Anne Schacht, 2025, Communications Psychology)


Regulating amusement is crucial in social contexts where expressing amusement may be inappropriate or disruptive. Yet little research has directly compared the effectiveness of different strategies for laughter regulation. Across three experiments, we examined how distraction, cognitive reappraisal, and expressive suppression affect laughter-related facial expressions and amusement ratings during exposure to jokes. Laughter regulation was operationalized by means of facial electromyography (fEMG) and subjective ratings of funniness as proxies for the expression and experience of amusement. In Experiments 1 and 2 (n = 40 each), distraction and expressive suppression most strongly reduced facial activity, whereas reappraisal produced smaller but consistent effects. However, only reappraisal reliably decreased funniness ratings, suggesting selective effects on the cognitive evaluation of humor. Experiment 3 (n = 41) introduced social laughter feedback and revealed that the presence of another’s laughter impaired expression control and increased funniness ratings, indicating that social cues shape both emotional expression and experience. Together, these findings show how distinct emotion-regulation strategies modulate amusement and laughter expressions in response to humorous stimuli and highlight the contextual sensitivity of laughter regulation in socially dynamic settings.

IT’S ALL WOGS ONCE WE LET THE SCOTS IN:

Inside Stephen Miller’s Dark Plot to Build a MAGA Terror State (Greg Sargent, 12/15/25, New Republic)

Yet at the time, many Americans didn’t think people like Miller’s ancestors were fit to become a part of the United States. They were targeted by a virulent strain of nativism toward those from Southern and Eastern Europe that was largely about race—it was rooted in the “scientific racism” of the day. But it also involved a somewhat different claim: that the new arrivals suffered from a “social degeneracy” or “social inadequacy”—two typical phrases at the time—which rendered them a threat to the “civilization” the United States was in the process of becoming. In this telling, as prominent sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross declared in a 1914 broadside, these new immigrants were inferior to Americans who descended from the “pioneer breed” who’d given birth to the American nation. The new arrivals, Ross said, had “submerged” that ancestral connection to the “pioneer breed,” setting the nation on a path to the “extinction that surely awaits it.”

“There is little or no similarity between the clear-thinking, self-governing stocks that sired the American people and this stream of irresponsible and broken wreckage that is pouring into the lifeblood of America the social and political diseases of the Old World,” declared one congressman not long after. As historian Gary Gerstle, author of the great book American Crucible, noted in an email to me, many nativists at the time lamented the “civilizational vulnerability” of the United States, believing that “white, Christian, and western European culture” stretching back to “ancient Greece and Rome” represented the “summit of human achievement” and the core of American civilization. This was under dire threat from “groups outside that culture” who were “unassimilable, with Jewish ranks full of Bolsheviks and Italian ranks full of anarchists.”

More than a century later, those diatribes about people like Miller’s ancestors are very similar to claims Miller makes today about the threat to “civilization” supposedly posed by those emigrating from Africa, Latin America, Asia, and elsewhere.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REFUSE VACCINES:

Absences at Texas School District Spiked 41 Percent After Measles Outbreak, Says Hoover Scholar (Hoover Education , December 16, 2025)

A West Texas school district that experienced a measles outbreak saw school absences climb by 41 percent and remain high for months afterward, demonstrating immense educational impact of preventable illnesses on communities with low rates of immunization, new research by a Hoover scholar shows.

The research was conducted by Thomas Dee, Robert and Marion Oster Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Barnett Family Professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education (GSE), alongside Sofia Wilson, a doctoral student at the GSE.

Republican liberty restricts freedom.

THE IRRITANT:

The Judaism of George Steiner (J. J. Kimche, December 1, 2020, First Things)

Steiner’s portrayal of Judaism is unusual for a modern secularist, in that it defends an essentialist view of Jewishness, arguing that certain immutable qualities define and anchor Jewishness across its historical and cultural permutations. Yet Steiner dismisses the usual hallmarks posited by other essentialist Jewish thinkers: claims of racial, religious, ethical, or national uniqueness. His brilliant and disturbing essay on the subject, “Our Homeland, The Text” (1985), argues that the Jew, like the biblical patriarchs, lives a life of self-exclusion. Spurning society, nature, and passion, the Jew seeks closeness with a transcendent God, which translates practically into a withdrawal from all social and temporal spaces. The Jew has no earthly home; alienation, wandering, self-isolation, and retreat into a vortex of exponentially expanding texts are the essence of Jewishness. The textual canon is the true home of every Jew, and every commentary is a return. This textual Judaism repudiates all attempts to place political, nationalistic, ritualistic, or racial components at its core. The Kingdom of David, the Bar-Kochba Revolt, and Zionism are dismissed as antithetical to true Judaism, whose textual nature underpins its migratory, multilingual, and cosmopolitan attributes.

This view of Judaism lends itself to an ethically based exceptionalism. The Jew, in Steiner’s eyes, is always a stranger, ceaselessly migrating through countries, cultures, and languages, always—and this is the central metaphor—a guest in another’s home. The eternally exiled nation exemplifies Geworfenheit (“thrownness,” a Heideggerian term for the existential disposition of being thrust into an environment of neither one’s fashioning nor one’s choosing), thus teaching the rest of humanity the value of living as “guests of life and truth.” It is this aspect of their existence, this disposition forced on them by the vicissitudes of history, that lends the Jews their ethical ­superiority. The oppressed, bookish, unworldly Jews are superior, contends Steiner, because they have never subjugated another people, never soiled themselves with national realpolitik, never subjected their enemies to the rack or the firing squad. A Jew is one who treads lightly in every circumstance, who treats all with the deference due to a host, whose presence jolts all societies from the pursuit of ethnic or cultural homogeneity. The Jew is the world’s moral irritant, the exemplar of suffering and otherness that gives the human conscience no rest. Through this eternal restlessness, both physical and moral, the Jews actualize their mission unto humanity—a role Steiner terms “an honor beyond honors.”

This paradigm motivates Steiner’s non-Zionism. If the mission of the Jews is bound up with their eternal role as guest, if their moral purity is acquired at the price of rootlessness and displacement, then any attempt to settle is a repudiation of Jewishness. Nationalism is thus an impoverishment of the Jewish spirit, a betrayal of the principles that fueled all prior spiritual and intellectual accomplishments. Zionism can never be forgiven for normalizing the Jew, for introducing political expediency, racial discrimination, and territoriality into Jewish history. Nothing could be more degrading for the people of Isaiah and Spinoza than to sink to the level of Jezebel and Herod, exchanging parchment and pedagogy for ministers and missiles. Despite his grudging admission that Israel has proven necessary for the physical protection of the Jews (a “sad miracle”), disappointment over the Jews’ turn from itinerant scribes to nation-building settlers pervades Steiner’s writings. Like the Hebraic prophets of old, Steiner castigates his fellow Jews for reneging on their historical mission and betraying their raison d’être.

THREE COEQUAL BRANCHES WITH DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES:

Supreme Court to Demolish the Special Interest Capture of “Independent” Agencies: Liberal and conservative justices switch sides in Slaughter, but a Democratic victory in 2026 Senate elections would render decision meaningless (Peterson, Paul E., Dec 15, 2025, The Modern Federalist)

The growing conservative support for a unitary executive goes well beyond Trump’s own desire to centralize decision making within the White House. Conservatives have long questioned the power of “iron triangles”—a nexus of special interests, congressional subcommittees, and agency bureaucrats—over regulatory policy. University of Chicago’s Nobel prizewinning economist Goerge Stigler observed as early as 1971 that independent regulatory agencies fail to serve the public interest but are captured “by industry and are designed and operated primarily for its benefit.” That argument appeared in the oral argument when Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked about the “dangers” independent agencies posed, giving the Trump Administration’s attorney the opportunity to refer to Stigler in his response: “is [the danger] . . . industry capture of the agencies?”

Today’s liberal justices are more tolerant of special interest representation on regulatory commissions, perhaps because, in the words of a New York Times commentator, the use of independent regulatory agencies “has meant more corporate regulation.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spells out the liberal position: “Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled . . . by nonpartisan experts . . . that expertise matters. . . So having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the Ph. Ds and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens.”

Independent regulatory agencies date back to 1887 when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Its job was to protect railroad corporations from the rising strength of farmers and small business operators in prairie and mountain states, who insisted on low shipping fees. Oklahoma, for example, ratified a constitution that required a rate of no more than two cents per mile.

As transportation systems became more complex, Congress expanded the ICC board from five to eleven members to accommodate the concerns of additional interests (such as truckers, bus lines, pipelines, and water carriers), but special-interest self-regulation introduced such massive inefficiencies into these industries Congress finally dismantled the agency (though the Surface Transportation Board (STB) took on some of its functions).

It is another oddity that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) is credited with the spread of ICC-style agencies when in fact he would have preferred more direct control. It is true he made use of the institution when he sought legislation that would allow him to regulate the economy in ways thought necessary to combat the depression. The independent agencies proved so popular there is now, depending on how one counts, an “alphabet soup” of 20 to 25 such entities, including the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on which conservative Republican William E. Humphrey served until FDR fired him. Humphrey then died, leaving behind an Executor to fight successfully for compensation to the estate for the time the commissioner would have served.

But FDR’s dismissal of Humphrey reveals the president himself was not enamored with independent agencies. Instead, they were promoted by a Republican-southern Democrat coalition in Congress, seeking to place limits on the power of a strong president. The coalition was solidified by Republican opposition to a powerful unitary executive and southern Democratic insistence that segregated institutions in the South be protected from national interference.