On Stephen Macaulay’s ‘Reagan on Tariffs’ (right column) --  You lay out Reagan’s text beautifully. I wrote about the same controversy from a different angle: how our fixation on Reagan’s ‘purity test’ for conservatism keeps limiting our democratic imagination. The ad wasn’t just about tariffs — it exposed how both Trump and his critics are still orbiting the myth of Reagan rather than confronting what his era really set in motion. –Steward Beckham (via Substack)

•••

Join the conversation. Email your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line so we post them in the proper column.

_____
MONDAY 10/27/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

“Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED.” —Donald J. Trump, October 23, 2025

"Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now".  —Donald J. Trump, October 25, 2025

What “egregious” act did Canada make against the United States such that the president of the United States has ended trade negotiations with the country?

Before answering that, it is important to note, using Trump-style typography:

CANADA IS THE LARGEST EXPORT MARKET FOR US GOODS. IN 2024 THERE WERE NEARLY $350 BILLION OF US GOODS SHIPPED TO CANADA.

That’s right. American companies send more products to Canada than any other country. 

All of the interest in China might lead you to believe that it is the biggest market.

Actually, it is a somewhat distant third, at $143.5 billion.

Mexico is in second place ($334 billion).

(You’d think Team Trump would be nicer to our two closest neighbors.)

The horrible thing that happened was that the government of Ontario ran an anti-tariff ad that aired during the first game of the World Series (which, ironically enough, the Toronto Blue Jays, dominated, 11-4 over the Los Angeles Dodgers).

The ad cleverly used a radio address from then-President Ronald Reagan, aired on April 25, 1987.

The charge is that somehow Reagan’s anti-tariff remarks were cherry-picked from his address.

So here are 300 consecutive words from the 784 words that Reagan spoke (counting the “My fellow Americans” and “Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.”):

Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada's leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there. Indeed, throughout the world there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.

You see, at first, when someone says, ``Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports,'' it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works -- but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity.

“Spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity.”

Perhaps the only concern that Trump might have is that there is no legislation — he’s just applying tariffs as he sees fit.

What Trump wants us to believe is that a single TV ad is a threat to our national and economic security.

Is there a single Republican — Reagan-style or otherwise — who actually believes this is the case?

There was no misconstruing Reagan’s position on tariffs, a position that actual conservatives hold, as well: 

Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

MAGA!

_____
MONDAY 10/27/25

Well, we know who evidently doesn’t. . . .

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

On Saturday on a stretch of Interstate 5 in southern California between San Diego and Orange counties, the US Marines had an unexpected but certainly not unimaginable or impossible incident.

As part of the Corps’ 250^th anniversary celebrations, a live-fire event took place at Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton is located mainly northeast of I-5, which runs through the southwestern edge of the Marine base. To the west of the I-5 is the Pacific.

During the event on Saturday there was a simulated assault with amphibious craft, jets, helicopters, Marines, Navy SEALs, and artillery. The whole shootin’ match. It was to show how the Marines can get it done (and they can) for two very special observers, Vice President JD Vance and Defense War Secretary Pete Hegseth, among thousands of others who were on hand for the event. 

Apparently the whole simulation was filmed for a prime-time special the White House is going to have broadcast on November 9. It will be quite an exhibition of your tax dollars at work taking place at a time where there is all manner of concern regarding how our military personnel are going to be paid during this government shutdown.

Now, as mentioned, most of Camp Pendleton is east of the I-5, and as the ocean is on the west side of the interstate, the “invasion” had to be conducted from that side of the road, from west to the east. And there’s that interstate highway in the way.

California Governor Gavin Newsom decided that 17 miles of the I-5 had to be closed during this event for the safety of motorists. 

Reporting in The Washington Post has it: “The Trump administration and the Marines had said there were ‘no public safety concerns’ surrounding the event.’”

Evidently “Newscum” was simply trying to cause trouble.

Or as a post from RapidResponse47, a White House X-Twitter outlet put it on Saturday, “Newscum is lying. He closed the highway — not only did nobody at the White House or the Marines ask him to do so, the Marines repeatedly said there are no public safety concerns with today’s exercises.”

As it turned out, one of the 155-mm rounds fired by a M777 howitzer detonated where it wasn’t supposed to.

Sh*t happens.

Now in the event that you’re not all caught up on various munitions, know that a 155-mm round is 6.1 inches in diameter, about two feet long, weighs some 100 pounds, and can carry various payloads, including explosives.

The lede to the Post story: 

“An artillery shell detonated prematurely during a US Marine Corps ceremony in California over the weekend, sending shrapnel toward Interstate 5 and California Highway Patrol officers who were part of Vice President JD Vance’s protective detail for the live-fire exercise, the California Highway Patrol said Sunday.”

It goes on:

“No officers were injured in the incident. A patrol car was hit by a two-inch piece of shrapnel, leaving a dent in its hood. One of the officers recalled hearing what he said sounded like pebbles falling on his motorcycle, according to an incident report.”

Perhaps there was some bona fide public safety concern.

Oh, it is also worth noting that a 155-mm projectile can fly at 1,850 mph, so even if there were no explosives on board, an impact from that would be at the sort of velocity that could completely ruin your day.

While it is wonderful that no one was hurt, that “two-inch piece of shrapnel” is concerning. 

Odds are had it hit, say, the windshield of someone rolling along, minding their own business, in an F-150 on the I-5, things would not have been good. Anyone who has traveled the I-5 knows there is always heavy traffic, so even if only one vehicle was impacted by a piece of shrapnel, the likely consequences would be vehicles careening off of one another. Not good.

But it seems the Trump Administration is fully in favor of having military personnel engaging with American citizens not merely in demonstrations of military prowess (does anyone doubt the Marines and the SEALs are the most bad-ass fighters on the planet?), but in city peace-keeping (which is odd because there is no “war” in the classic sense of the term. Bad guys? Yes. But do we go to “war” with them or do we let the police departments do their jobs? . . . and if they can’t, then they ask for help.).

Yes, the event at Pendleton was an accident. But as Helmuth von Moltke, a 19^th-century Prussian field marshal, put it, “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

While there was no enemy on the I-5, Murphy’s Law still exists.

Later that day there was Donald Trump’s AI-generated cartoon video posted to his social media platform in response to the “No Kings” rallies held across the US on Saturday.

Despite his saying many times last week that he isn’t a king (e.g., on Air Force One, October 19, “I’m not a king. I work my ass off to make our country great.”), the cartoon Donald Trump is, crown on head, flying a jet plane (there were F-35s and F/A-18s flying at Pendleton Saturday). 

And the character is dropping on the crowds below what is clearly excrement.

Classy.

For all of you parents: How would you feel about your kids posting a piece like that?

According to the Silver Bulletin, which aggregates and averages polls to come up with its numbers, as of October 20, Donald Trump’s approval rating is 44.2% and his disapproval is at 52.1%.

It goes on to point out: “Trump’s net approval ratings on inflation (-27.2), the economy (-14.4), and trade (-13.8) are also firmly underwater. And even his immigration approval rating has fallen from +11.0 at the start of his term to -3.2 today.”

To put in indelicately, he shouldn’t be dropping that stuff on Americans who are executing their democratic rights. He ought to be trying to get out of it, because he seems to be in deep.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
THURSDAY 10/23/25

On Stephen Macaulay’s October 13 Right-Column, ‘Debt Up, Services Down – Is This Any Way to Run a Government? –War is good business. If you could wage war on the homefront it would be a real efficient way to shovel money into the eager maws of allies and donors. –Ben Wojdyla (via Facebook)

•••

On No Kings … MAGA allies including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) have attacked Saturday’s No Kings rally, described and supported in contributing pundit Jerry Lanson’s column below (scroll down this column to read it), as being run by “antifa,” terrorists and Marxists. The uniformity of their message is proof that White House advisor/attack dog Stephen Miller is behind the messaging, according to The New Republic, which reports it is backfiring as Democrats are turning the criticism around to galvanize attendance. 

Your civilly stated comments on this matter, whether you identify with the left or right, are welcome here. We would also like to hear from you on Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s ‘Debt Up, Services Down,’ or any other left or right columns, or recent news/aggregate/analysis from the center column.

We are not a social media site like X-Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Bluesky, et. al. Instead, The Hustings is a civil media site designed to allow you free and easy access to various gradations of political thought from the left and right. This page is designed for easy access to readers who do not agree with you.

Citizen punditry is easy. Email COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please list your political leanings – right, left, conservative, liberal – in the subject line so we may post them in the proper column. –Editors

_____
THURSDAY 10/16/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

On October 14 new tariffs went into effect.

On kitchen cabinets and vanities. Upholstered furniture.

As it says, in part, in a proclamation posted on the White House website September 29, 2025, “the Secretary” — as in Howard Lutnick — "found and advised me of his opinion that wood products are being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States and provided recommendations for action under section 232 to adjust the imports of wood products so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security of the United States.”

That’s right: the coffee-cup hutch and that couch are likely made of wood.

Somehow this is critical to our national defense.

So it gets a 25% tariff now. It will be 50% on January 1.

The proclamation goes on to say: “The Secretary also found that while the United States possesses ample raw materials and industrial capacity to meet domestic wood products demand, wood production in the United States remains underdeveloped. “

Wait a minute.

At first the issue was the national security threat posed by all of those vanities and sectional couches. 

Now it is clearly an industrial policy play: We have the goods, but the goods just aren’t being used to the extent that Trump and Lutnick think they should be.

Isn’t it possible that the products in question are “underdeveloped” because they aren’t economically viable?

In a story in The Washington Post about the imposition of the tariffs, John Dean, founder of Dean Cabinetry, a small business in Manchester, Connecticut, says, “My personal perspective is most small- and medium-sized businesses are trying to absorb those costs.”

First, again note that the tariffs aren’t being paid by another country. They are being paid for by the businesses that are importing these products. 

(Why are they importing them? It doesn’t take an Adam Smith to know that it makes economic sense.)

But one thing gets lost in the discussion of whether it is Dean Cabinetry or General Motors absorbing the costs of tariffs.

This means that these companies make less money. If they have less money, then they can’t afford as many employees as they otherwise might have on staff. If these people lose their jobs, then their ability to purchase things from shelves to Chevy Silverado trucks is going to be minimized. So the producers of the shelves and trucks are going to find themselves with less money, so they will need less people. And. . . .

While many of the tariffs that have been applied or threatened since Liberation Day are nonsensical, this one may reach the absolute height of absurdity.

_____
THURSDAY 10/16/25

Commentary by Jerry Lanson

The raid took place in the dead of night, as heavily armed men burst into unit after unit of a Chicago apartment building in a chilling scene with little precedent in American law enforcement.

Reported the Chicago Sun-Times: “Armed federal agents in military fatigues busted down their doors … pulling men, women and children from their apartments, some of them naked, residents and witnesses said. Agents approached or entered nearly every apartment in the five-story building, and US citizens were among those detained for hours.”

Those arrested were neither killers nor terrorists. A spokesman for the FBI’s Chicago office called it a “targeted immigration enforcement operation,” though the Department of Homeland Security said “some” of those arrested “are believed to be involved in drug trafficking” and weapons crimes.

Then there were people like Rodrick Johnson, 67, a US citizen who eventually was released. He told the newspaper that after agents broke down his door, he was dragged out in zip-ties (a short of handcuff) and left tied up for three hours. He said his request to see a warrant and talk to a lawyer were ignored.

This horror show, in the final hours of September 30, was in complete violation of legal due process in this country. Yet the story, one that demanded high-profile coverage and follow-up in the country’s national newspapers and television networks sort of dribbled out and then fizzled.

The New York Times did publish a front-page story October 1, but one in the parlance of journalism, it “buried the lead.” It downplayed the incident and focused instead on the Trump administration following through on its enforcement promise.

Wrote the NYT:

“The Trump administration has vowed for more than a month to bring a show of federal force to Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city, to crack down on illegal immigration.

“This week, the administration has visibly followed through. On Sunday, federal officers in camouflage patrolled tourist-heavy areas of downtown Chicago in a conspicuous pack, attracting stares and taunts, including from a bicyclist the agents tried to chase. On Monday, US military officials said that 100 National Guard troops would be deployed to Illinois to protect federal facilities, a mobilization that is expected in the coming days.

And early on Tuesday, federal agents, using drones, helicopters, trucks and dozens of vehicles, conducted a middle-of the-night raid on a rundown apartment building on the South Side of Chicago, leaving the building mostly empty of residents by morning and neighbors stunned.”

CNN at least got straight to the point when, two days later on October 3, it got around to posting the story under the headline, “37 People Arrested and American Kids Separated from Parents After ICE Raid at Chicago apartment.” [The raid was actually carried out by the Border Patrol and other Homeland Security Agency officers.]

“Adults and children alike were pulled from their Chicago apartments, crying and screaming, during a large overnight raid that left tenants and neighbors spoken,” began the story.

“I’ve been on military bases for a good portion of my life,” said Darrell Ballard, who lives in the building next door. “And the activity I saw – it was an invasion.”

As for The Washington Post, it put up an Associated Press story – not one written by its own staff – on Oct. 6. Like the NYT, it wrapped the raid into an overview of aggressive federal actions, beginning like this:

“CHICAGO – Storming an apartment complex by helicopter as families slept. Deploying chemical agents near a public school. Handcuffing a Chicago City Council member near a hospital.

“Activists, residents and leaders say increasingly combative tactics used by federal immigration agents are sparking violence and fueling neighborhood tensions in the nation’s third-largest city.”

A few caveats are in order. First, story selection and play are always a relative process in newsrooms. Editors, producers and news organizations have to weigh the importance of one story against other news of the day. And the onslaught of news in recent weeks has been extraordinary – the promise at last of peace in the Middle East, the US government shutdown, and the broader battle over militarization of American cities all have vied for attention.

Secondly, national news organization often seek to put news in a broader context and always attempt to report responsibly and fairly.

Even so, when reporters and editors downplay such overt violations of Americans’ rights, they endanger all our freedoms and their own credibility. Some apparently small stories – consider the Watergate break-in, for example – demand detailed coverage and aggressive follow-up. Without it, the public learns next to nothing.

In recent days, Donald Trump has moved aggressively to impose federal rule over the states.

He’s already cowed Congress, the highest court and a growing swath of American businesses, universities and – yes – media companies.

Last week, he twice threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law

that allows the president to deploy the US military domestically and federalize National Guard troops under specific circumstances. It was last used by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots, but that was at the request of the governor and mayor – not against their will. The law, broadly and vaguely written in ways that allow a president to suppress “an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy” in a state, has yet to be tested.

Trump has said, however, that Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and the Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson should be jailed for opposing the deployment of Illinois and Texas National Guard troops in Chicago, a city in which – like Washington D.C. before it – crime rates have been in decline.

Pritzker, for his part, has called the Trump administration’s actions, “an unconstitutional invasion of Illinois by the federal government.”

In a New York Times article headlined “JB Pritzker has had it with Democrats Who Won’t Stand up to Trump,” the governor also chided fellow Democrats.

“This is exactly the moment for people to stand up,” he said. “And do I sense enough people are doing it? No, I don’t. It shouldn’t be that there are Democrats that are afraid, because you know what? We’re the targets. We need to be strong, we need to fight back.”

The same message arguably could be sent to news organizations, college presidents, law firms, big businesses and more. But while fear undoubtedly is a factor, it alone doesn’t explain the actions or inactions of we, the people.

Unless the leading news media show and tell American people about specifically egregious actions happening against them on the ground in Chicago and elsewhere, they’re less likely to know how to respond, less able to formulate intelligent opinions of what they believe is right and wrong.

As Pritzker might say, this is exactly the moment for news outlets to cover the news aggressively, not slowly or tepidly – and to follow up on stories such as those people left zip-tied on the streets of Chicago, their apartments ransacked. What happens to American citizens, even poor ones, matters. They are protected by our Constitution, just like everyone else.

Perhaps you’ll remember. It was The Washington Post that told its readers – until dropping the slogan at the outset of Trump’s second term – Democracy Dies in Darkness.

This column first appeared in Lanson’s Substack From the Grassroots.

_____
MONDAY 10/13/25

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

One of the things that doesn’t get a sufficient amount of attention is the simple fact that the government is not a business.

A business provides goods and services to consumers. As a result of that exchange, the business makes a profit.

This is not to say that it is acceptable for the government to do the opposite of making a profit — as in running a debt — but that’s been the status quo for some time now: Debt, debt and more debt.

People imagine that Donald Trump is some sort of magnificent businessman, yet if we look at the national debt during his presidencies, he’s evidently anything but. In 2017, the first year in office of his first term, the national debut was $20.25 trillion. The next year it was $21.52 trillion. In 2019 it was up to $22.72 trillion. 2020 brought it up to $26.95 trillion. 

So during that term the debt rose 33%.

The Biden presidency continued the increase in the size of the debt. 

With 2024 being on his watch the figure was at $35.46 trillion.

Through September 2025, under the Trump Administration, the debt has risen to $37.64 trillion and based on the rate it has grown so far this year, it is projected to reach $39.44 trillion by end of the year.

Hell of a businessman, to put it mildly.

The role of a government is to provide services to the people under its protection (and protection is a large part of what government spending is on). By the populus putting money into a big pot, the government is able to spend more on services than individuals can.

Consider: If the street right outside your house has big potholes in it, odds are that you aren’t going to have the money to call in an asphalt crew to take care of it.

One might think that with the increase in debt, the Trump administration is doing all manner of things to provide superior services to the US population.

And according to recent Gallup polling on what kind of job various federal agencies are doing, if you thought that you would be wrong.

In 2024, according to the poll, 40% thought the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was doing an excellent/good job. In 2025, that number is 31%. So essentially that’s down by 25%, not some sort of margin of error.

The Food and Drug Administration is down to 27%.

Seems like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is doing quite a job, as both fall under his purview.

It is worth noting that the CDC lost 2,400 people this year and the FDA lost 3,500. What are the odds the numbers are going to get better?

We’ve all seen — and no doubt some of us experienced — hurricanes, fires, floods or other major disasters that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is on the ground for, ready to provide assistance. In 2024 FEMA’s excellent/good rankings was at 40%. Now it is down to 26%. 

FEMA has lost about a third of its employees this year.

Shouldn’t Kristi Noam be spending less time with ICE raids and more time on helping FEMA get back in shape?

And finally, the Environmental Protection Agency seems to be the bête noire of the Administration. For example, in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Trump described climate change as “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” and that renewables are a “joke,” “pathetic” and that they “don’t work.” Never mind that during the first half of 2025 renewables accounted for 34.3% of all global electricity generation — surpassing coal’s 33.1%.

Perhaps if more countries were using “clean, beautiful coal” that would not be the case.

Because air pollution is evidently a con job, there’s little need for many people to be working at the EPA. So far this year it has cut about 23% of its workforce and it aims to bring that percentage to 33% by the end of the year.

As for the job it is doing, the Gallup poll says it’s down to 25%.

The debt goes up. The services provided by the government go down.

No, it is not cherry-picking to use Gallup results for the first year of Trump’s second term. Following is some perspective.

How popular was the CDC back in 2003 when George W. Bush was president?

It was at 66%, compared to Trump’s 31%.

The FDA in 2009, when Obama, the man Trump would like everyone to believe was an incompetent (with, perhaps, the exception of Obama’s ability to walk down stairs):

38% compared to Trump’s 27%.

FEMA in 2014, again under Obama?

47% compared to Trump’s 26%.

And the EPA in 2003, again under George W. Bush?

39% compared to Trump’s 25%.

Given the increase in the debt and the decrease in services under Trump, were the US government a business, his stewardship would be putting it out of business.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings, writing primarily for the right column.

_____
MONDAY 10/13/25