Kerby Anderson
Pundits and political consultants warn that the Democratic party needs to reevaluate some of its policy positions. The editors at The New York Times argue “that the party moved too far left on social issues after Barack Obama left office in 2017.” They explain that the party not only lost the presidency, but also the Senate, the House of Representatives, and most governor’s races.
Will Democratic candidates moderate their position on a topic like transgenderism? In a recent commentary, Jack Butler says that is unlikely, and points to the harsh reaction from the left to California Governor Gavin Newsom’s statement that allowing men to compete against women in sports is “deeply unfair.”
Jack Butler doubts moderation will happen on the transgender issue due to three powerful forces: money, science, and religion. First, there is a“tremendous institutional and financial network in place to ensure Democrats, both aspiring and elected, yield to the utmost-left-possible iteration of transgender ideology.” To understand this, just follow the money.
Second, leftist science is a different form of science. You have probably seen yard signs that say: “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” and “Science is Real.” What that often means is to “trust the science” when it conforms to your view of reality and reject it when it doesn’t.
Third is religion. All it takes is a few religious leaders to call for transgender acceptance to reinforce transgender ideology. Jack Butler calls this a classic postmodern trick: if you can find religious differences of opinion, then there is no genuine truth.
Any moderation on the issue of transgenderism will expose weaknesses and logical flaws. That is why it is unlikely to see many Democratic candidates changing their position.

Kerby Anderson
Last week the president launched tariffs and a trade war. Nearly everyone has an opinion about tariffs, but it is worth looking back at an article written in 1985. Why should we consult an essay that is 40 years old? We should pay attention to it because it’s talking about something that happened nearly a century ago.
Ed Yardeni provided a reprint of his article, “The Protectionist Road to Depression.” He believes “the single more catastrophic cause of the Great Depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of June 1930.” Yes, the stock market crash in October 1929 was significant, and so were other economic events at the time. But if you look at his graphs about what happened after passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, you can see his point.
A little history might be in order. Representative Willis Hawley from Oregon introduced a tariff bill in 1929. Senator Reed Smoot of Utah introduced his version of a tariff bill that was finally passed in 1930. A conference bill was later passed. As critics predicted, international trade retaliation came from numerous countries. Soon world trade collapsed as he shows in one of his exhibits.
He wrote his essay because he was seeing protectionist sentiments “spreading at an alarming rate.” One bill (at the time) would impose a 25% tax on all imports from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil. Sound familiar? The countries targeted might have changed, but the percentages proposed are the same.
Will the current tariffs bring jobs back to this country? On my radio program, I read the long list of companies who say they will invest in America. Yes, there is some good news with the tariff announcement, but there is also concern. That’s why learning a bit of economic history might be helpful.