Presidents

IT’S A PURITAN NATION:

Calvin Coolidge’s “Hebraic Mortar”: Henry Ford sought to mainstream anti-Jewish sentiment in the United States. In a 1925 address, Coolidge decisively broke with Ford’s movement. (Devorah Goldman, 12/22/25, Public Discourse)

But he argues that the colonial character was nonetheless marked by a common religious liberalism: “From its beginnings, the new continent had seemed destined to be the home of religious tolerance.” This, he suggests, is because of the Bible, “the work of literature that was common to all of them.” Scripture was everywhere in the colonies. Citing “the historian Lecky”—presumably the nineteenth-century Irishman William Lecky—Coolidge contends that “Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy.”

For the “sturdy old divines of those days,” the Bible served as a patriotic rallying cry:

They knew the Book. They were profoundly familiar with it, and eminently capable in the exposition of all its justifications for rebellion. To them, the record of the exodus from Egypt was indeed an inspired precedent. They knew what arguments from holy writ would most powerfully influence their people. It required no great stretch of logical processes to demonstrate that the children of Israel, making bricks without straw in Egypt, had their modern counterpart in the people of the colonies, enduring the imposition of taxation without representation!

The idea of America as a kind of Israel, an “almost chosen nation,” in Abraham Lincoln’s words some generations earlier, was not new. William Bradford, founder of the Plymouth colony in 1620, compared his personal study of Hebrew to Moses seeing the Promised Land, yet not being permitted to enter. John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton, founders of the New Haven colony in 1637, were expert Hebrew scholars; around half of the dozens of statutes in the New Haven code of 1655 contained references to Hebrew scripture. Davenport ensured that the first public school in New Haven included Hebrew in the core curriculum and encouraged broad engagement with, as Coolidge puts it, the “great figures of Hebrew history, with Joshua, Samuel, Moses, Joseph, David, Solomon, Gideon, Elisha.” The United States is peppered with place names sourced from the Bible: Salem, Sharon, Jericho, Bethlehem, Goshen, Shiloh, and Hebron are just a few examples.

George Washington famously sent warm greetings to Jewish congregations, most notably to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, where he offered a blessing inspired by Hebrew prophets: “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

This biblical rootedness, Coolidge suggests, remains vital to maintaining a cohesive polity. A shared attachment to the Bible bolstered the patriot cause, drawing together scattered sympathies and interests and “divergencies of religious faith.” It is no wonder, he notes, that Jews—who first arrived on America’s shores in the 1650s—formed an integral part of the Revolutionary War effort, giving ample blood and treasure.

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.

THIS IS THE WAY:

Jack Smith, Trump’s Target, Shifts From Defense to Counterattack (Glenn Thrush, Nov. 3, 2025, NY Times)

Mr. Smith, who spent more than two years aggressively collecting evidence to prove Mr. Trump mishandled classified documents and tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, appears eager to publicly challenge a foundational pillar of MAGA canon: that the president was a sinned-upon innocent who did nothing to deserve scrutiny, much less two prosecutions.

Mr. Smith has told people in his orbit that he welcomes the opportunity to present the public case against Mr. Trump denied to him by the Supreme Court decision asserting broad presidential immunity from prosecution and adverse rulings from a Trump-appointed judge on the federal bench in Florida.

TRUMPISM FAILED THE LAST TWO TIMES TOO:

The New Deal’s Radical Uncertainty: a review of False Dawn by George Selgin (James E. Hartley, 9/23/25, Law & Libertry)

So much for the success stories of the Roosevelt Administration’s efforts to combat the Great Depression. When we turn our attention away from the monetary side of things, the narrative becomes quite dismal. The lack of success was not from a lack of trying. As every high school history student knows, keeping track of the alphabet soup of New Deal policies involves a lot of memorization.

Selgin meticulously dissects the “twin pillars of Roosevelt’s recovery program.” First, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) aimed to raise the prices of agricultural products, which certainly benefits the farmers who are selling the products, but is not so helpful to those buying the products. The agricultural sector, however, was about a quarter of the population, and it is certainly true that if a sufficient number of farmers went bankrupt, it would result in a noticeable drop in the food supply.

The AAA simultaneously provided direct benefits to farmers and required them to limit the amount of food they produced, causing prices to rise. As a relief measure for farmers, the effect of such a policy is obvious. But, did it help economic recovery? The evidence here is pretty overwhelming that it did not. Transferring money from one set of the population (those who buy food) to another set (those who produce food) is not a net benefit. Even within the agricultural sector, the effect on recovery was negative. While the farm owners benefited from the payments they received and the higher prices for their products, because the farm owners were restricting production, those benefits are offset by the reduction in the number of farm workers employed by the farm owners.

What about the other pillar of the New Deal, the National Recovery Administration (NRA)? It was even worse. An ever-expanding set of rules trying to micromanage just about every aspect of business behavior, the NRA was the clear centerpiece of the Roosevelt Administration’s effort to promote economic recovery. Price and wage controls, production limits, industry codes, business and worker councils, the list goes on and on. As Selgin concludes: “After initially raising hopes, the NRA ended up disappointing almost everyone, including those businessmen who hoped to profit by dominating the code-writing boards. Before the experiment ended, Roosevelt himself felt compelled to admit (privately, to Frances Perkins) that ‘the whole thing is a mess.’”

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH’S FUNCTION:

A Quiet Administrative Revolution: Changes in bureaucratic procedure are revolutionizing how the administrative state works—potentially reestablishing democratic control.(Donald Devine, 9/08/25, Law & Liberty)

The ruling provision of the OPM guidance directly states that “covered agencies and subdivisions are no longer subject to [certain] collective-bargaining requirements.” As a result, executive agencies no longer must engage in collective bargaining with federal unions. Consequently, the original recognition of the relevant unions no longer applies, and unions lose their status as exclusively recognized labor organizations requiring agency facilitation in collecting union dues.

Agencies are further arguably allowed to proceed with personnel policies generally, including reductions in force. Units covered by the memorandum include the departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, Justice, and Homeland Security, and substantial parts of most other major federal agencies. All are directed “to return to the policies of Executive Order 13839” and are “accordingly required to, consistent with applicable law, return performance evaluations to 30 days, and administer discipline and unacceptable performance policies to those set in the first Trump administration and to separate employees for unacceptable performance in appropriate cases.” Union involvement in employee separations was invalidated, and government-paid union positions were eliminated.

A memorandum titled “Restoring Accountability for Career Senior Executives” revived performance management principles requiring actual plans from each top career senior executive to be evaluated by a political superior and reviewed by performance review boards managed by non-career executives. Failure to perform could lead to removal without an appeal to an administrative review. Similar procedures would again cover second-level career supervisors as in the original Carter legislation.

Together, these reforms change the nature of government administration. The union-related changes alone are fundamental. These weaken government unions and associations’ powers, agency fees, and costs, freeing willing career managers and executives to implement the decisions of presidentially appointed agency leaders. Even Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt opposed unionizing federal government employees.

THE DOOR WAS AJAR:

The history of American corporate nationalization (Tyler Cowen, August 24, 2025, Marginal Revolution)

You should note that although the United States has not so many state-owned enterprises, the American government still has ways of expressing its will on business, or as the case may be, favoring one set of businesses over another. In these latter cases it can be said that American business is expressing its will over government through forms of crony capitalism, a concept which is spreading in both America and China.

The United States has evolved a subtle brand of corporatism and industrial policy that is mostly decentralized and also – this is an important point — relatively stable across shifts of political power. America uses its large country privileges to maintain access to world markets and to protect the property rights of its investors, usually without much regard for whether they are Democrats or Republicans. For instance the State Department works hard to maintain open world markets for films and other cultural goods and services. Toward this end America has used trade negotiations, diplomatic leverage, foreign aid, and also explicit arm-twisting, based on its military commitments to protect allied nations in Western Europe and East Asia. America already had successful entertainment producers, it just wanted to make sure they could earn more money abroad, and that is why the American government usually insists on open access for audiovisual products when it negotiates free trade treaties. Yet in these deals there is not much if any explicit favoritism for one movie or television studio over another, or for one political alliance over another. Democrats are disproportionately overrepresented in Hollywood, but Republican administrations protect the interests of the American entertainment sector nonetheless. It’s about the money and the jobs, not about shifting political coalitions. You’ll note that the independence from particular political coalitions gives the American business environment a particular stability and predictability, to its advantage internationally and otherwise.

“GREAT GOBLIN-BEAST”:

The Ghost Bear (Theodore Roosevelt, Forgotten Tales and Vanished Trails)

They were surprised to find that, during their short absence, something — apparently a bear — had visited camp and rummaged about among their things, scattering the contents of their packs and, in sheer wantonness, destroying their lean-to. The footprints of the beast were quite plain, but at first they paid no particular heed to them, busying themselves with rebuilding the lean-to, laying out their beds and stores, and lighting the fire.

While Bauman was making ready supper, it being already dark, his companion began to examine the tracks more closely, and soon took a brand from the fire to follow them up, where the intruder had walked along a game trail after leaving the camp. When the brand flickered out, he returned and took another, repeating his inspection of the footprints very closely. Coming back to the fire, he stood by it a minute or two, peering out into the darkness, and suddenly remarked: “Bauman, that bear must have been walking on two legs.”

WHILE HE PROMISED TO LIFT SANCTIONS:

From Russian Interference to Revisionist Innuendo: What the Gabbard Files Actually Say (Renee DiResta, August 6, 2025, Lawfare)

Russia interfered in the 2016 election in three distinct ways: First, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), also known as the “troll factory,” ran a disinformation campaign using fake social media accounts with content that reached more than 100 million people. The propaganda content surrounding the election aimed to depress the Black and liberal vote on the left, while promoting Trump on the right. During the Republican primary, following a brief effort to boost Rand Paul, they pivoted to Trump, denigrating primary opponents such as Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Contrary to the talking point that it was just “$150k in Facebook ads,” the IRA’s broader influence campaign cost around $10 million per year. It ultimately became the subject of a Department of Justice indictment against the IRA, its parent company, and individual operatives.

Second, throughout 2015 and 2016, the Russian military intelligence agency the GRU hacked targets including the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Clinton campaign, Open Society Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and other think tanks seen as promoting liberal internationalism. Russian military intelligence then selectively leaked the hacked material, usually with the intent of embarrassing the target at a strategic time. For example, the first tranche of thousands of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s documents were dumped by WikiLeaks approximately an hour after the release of the Access Hollywood “Grab ‘Em By the Pussy” tape on Oct. 7, 2016. (Roger Stone was apparently in contact with the hackers’ Guccifer persona about the releases.) The Podesta emails had staying power; they would become the foundation of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.

Third, Russian cyber actors, likely also the GRU, targeted election infrastructure by attempting to hack machines and databases concerned with voter rolls in states and jurisdictions across the United States (some reports say all 50 states were targeted). No votes were changed and no voter information was altered.

These activities were summarized in the Jan. 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which described the interference as a multifaceted influence campaign ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin to undermine faith in the democratic process and damage Clinton’s candidacy. The assessment noted that Putin and the Russian government developed a “clear preference for President-elect Trump.” It made these assessments with high confidence. It also assessed that Russia had “aspired to help” Trump’s chances at victory.

OPERA BOUFFE:

American Faust: On Ali Abbasi’s ‘The Apprentice’ (Brian Pascus, Apr 18, 2025, Metropolitan Review)

Abbasi’s Apprentice tells a far different story, with three scenes that mirror the grand bargain between Goethe’s Faust, a fictional scholar who received everything the world could offer, yet remained unsatisfied, and Mephistopheles, the agent of Lucifer, a cunning, demonic force, who made a bet with God that he could purchase the soul of Faust in return for wealth, fame, power, and all the pleasures of the flesh, even Helen of Troy, before being taken down into Hell, where a long awaited payment could finally be collected.

The first scene that demands our attention occurs about 28 minutes into the film, when a young Trump — played almost perfectly by Sebastian Stan in an Oscar-nominated performance — is initiated by Cohn into the dark arts of power after witnessing blackmail and extortion. Donald (he is not yet Trump, or even Faust, for that matter) sits inside Cohn’s townhome, silent, speechless, unable to process the use of such flagrant immorality. “I don’t know what I just saw,” he mumbles, rationalizing his own complicity as he sits far away from Cohn on the couch, in a lame attempt to remain pure. Cohn orders him to come closer as he prepares the first of many lessons: This is a nation of men, not laws, and men can be bullied, shamed, bribed, threatened, and seduced. “There is no right or wrong,” Cohn tells Donald. “There is no morality, there is no Truth, with a capital T. It’s a fiction, a construct. It is man made. Nothing matters except winning — that’s it.”

The conversation, which pulls the veil from 27-year-old Donald’s eyes over the worthiness of virtue, recalls the admission Mephistopheles makes to Faust upon appearing inside Faust’s study, out of a vaporous cloud, when he introduces his wondrous abilities to God’s once faithful servant: “Let foolish little human souls / delude themselves that they are wholes / I am part of that part, when all began / was all there was / part of Darkness before man / Whence light was born, proud light, which now makes futile war / To wrest from Night, its mother, what before / was hers, her ancient place and space.”

In both cases, while terms of an agreement have been established, a pact requires consecration. Midway through the film, a critical exchange of values between Donald and Cohn is illustrated in a short burst of scenes. Donald stands on the cusp of his breakthrough project, renovating the dilapidated Commodore Hotel in Midtown, having convinced Hyatt’s Jay Pritzker that he has already secured a generous property tax abatement from the City’s Board of Estimate. Of course, this is untrue, so Donald rushes over to his mentor’s home in the middle of the night, frantic, helpless, desperate to secure the greatest favor yet from his patron. “I’ll do anything, whatever you want,” Donald begs. “You can’t turn fishes into loaves,” Cohn replies, about to slam the door on his subject. “I’m begging you, Roy. I believe in this. I’m begging you, Roy, please, just make the call.” Donald is vulnerable and frenzied. His fate lies in Cohn’s hands; only Cohn’s voice — a call to a higher power — can make a difference in his life. Cohn hesitates before telling Donald that he’ll use his influence on the mayor the next morning. “Be glad he owes me,” he nods before they embrace. Donald, near tears, in an uncharacteristic show of gratitude, whispers, “I love you. I love you.”

A complete unknown stands before his benefactor, promising anything he wants in return, so long as this dark force uses his mysterious powers to influence the direction of his life. Have we not seen this before?