Agreed Kevin. More of the same just wasn’t working well enough, particularly for the lower & middle classes in the U.S. for several decades. Some serious changes were called for, and some serious changes are being made. The Dept. of Education, initially a gift to teachers unions for votes, has done nothing to improve education. Public education has been in a serious decline ever since DofEduc. creation. It will not be missed. Too many other examples to post here. Yes, many folks in the public sector are going to be hurt with job losses. Sorry, but that’s life and they’ll recover when they learn to work in the private sector. This article’s author needs to chill; the sky is not falling.
This does not fit into a Persuasion model. To persuade me, first there would need an acknowledgement that problems exist. Then there would need to be a focus on the alternative for how these problems could be solved. What I am reading a screeching, emotive dump of criticism of the bold Trump leadership to try and fix what is broken... and the inferred persuasion is to keep everything status quo.
Sorry, but this isn't the level of quality that I expect for Persuasion. Maybe change the name to "The Ranting"
I again hear no alternative but just more predictions. I would like to hear what a new deal for 2028 would be. I understand people fear any change. But you if you don’t like where we are, come up with something better. Certainly, going backwards isn’t the answer. I willingly to listen if you have something instructive to say.
"Enormous problems like undocumented immigration and the opioid epidemic fester for years with no effective solution."
This not entirely the fault of a sclerotic administrative state. Under the Biden administration, policy decisions, influenced by advisors and activists, contributed to the immigration problem as follows:
Certain policies, often influenced by immigration activists and progressive advisors, created incentives for migrants to cross the border illegally:
Catch and Release Policies: Under multiple administrations, migrants apprehended at the border have often been released into the U.S. with notices to appear in immigration court rather than being detained or swiftly deported. Activists pushed for these policies, arguing that detention was inhumane. The result has been a system where many migrants fail to appear in court, contributing to a growing undocumented population.
Limiting Deportations: Under Biden, deportations have were deprioritized for many categories of undocumented immigrants, a shift driven by progressive activists advocating for a more lenient approach.
Biden’s Early Messaging: During the 2020 campaign and early presidency, Biden criticized Trump’s strict border policies and promised a more humane approach. This was interpreted by many migrants as an open invitation to cross the border.
Refusal to Call the Situation a Crisis: Activists and advisors pushed administrations to frame illegal immigration in humanitarian rather than security terms, downplaying the scale of the problem.
Ending the "Remain in Mexico" Policy: This Trump-era policy, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases were processed, was ended under Biden, leading to a surge in border crossings.
Reversing Safe Third Country Agreements: The Trump administration negotiated agreements with Central American countries to require migrants to seek asylum in the first safe country they reached. These agreements were ended under Biden, allowing more migrants to head directly to the U.S. border.
Expanding Asylum Eligibility: By broadening the criteria for asylum, advisors made it easier for economic migrants to claim asylum, even if they don’t meet traditional requirements.
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Extensions: Extensions of TPS for countries with longstanding crises mean that people who entered illegally can remain indefinitely, creating an incentive for others to come.
Turning to the opioid epidemic, there were regulatory and government failures. In approving OxyContin, the FDA relied on misleading data about its addictiveness provided by the maker. The DEA and FDA were slow to act, even as overdose deaths surged. The CDC only issued new opioid prescribing guidelines in 2016, long after widespread addiction had taken hold.
But consider the other factors that caused the epidemic to fester:
Aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies;
Overprescription by doctors;
Drug distributors (e.g., McKesson, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen) flooded communities with opioids, failing to report suspicious orders.
Large pharmacy chains like Walgreens and CVS dispensed excessive amounts of opioids without proper oversight.
Slow Public Awareness & Policy Response
It took years for the public to recognize opioids as a crisis because addiction often started with legally prescribed drugs.
The government response was sluggish, treating addiction as a criminal issue rather than a public health emergency.
Profit Motive in Treatment & Recovery
Even as the crisis grew, addiction treatment remained expensive and inaccessible, with many programs relying on abstinence-only models rather than evidence-based treatments like methadone or buprenorphine.
Impact of the Legal System
Lawsuits against Purdue Pharma and other opioid manufacturers took decades to play out, with settlements arriving far too late to prevent the worst damage.
The idea of "catch and release" is a political slogan, not a legal term. In reality, many migrants are released because the U.S. simply lacks the detention capacity to hold all asylum seekers, especially families and children. Moreover, U.S. law gives people the right to seek asylum regardless of how they enter the country. Studies have shown that most asylum seekers appear for court hearings, especially when given legal guidance and support.
Deportation priorities under Biden have shifted but not eliminated. The administration has chosen to focus limited resources on removing individuals who pose threats to public safety or national security rather than trying to remove as many undocumented immigrants as possible. This is a strategic law enforcement choice, not a move toward “open borders.”
Blaming Biden’s campaign messaging for increased migration also lacks evidence. Migration patterns have surged under multiple presidents, including Trump, and are driven primarily by poverty, violence, climate change, and instability in countries of origin. Suggesting that desperate families make life-altering decisions based on a U.S. campaign speech is overly simplistic.
Ending the "Remain in Mexico" policy and the Safe Third Country agreements was a legal and humanitarian correction. These policies exposed asylum seekers—including families and children—to violence, extortion, and abuse in dangerous border zones. Numerous human rights organizations documented these harms, and U.S. courts questioned their legality.
It’s also important to clarify that expanding asylum eligibility means interpreting existing legal categories, such as persecution based on political opinion or social groups, and not creating new ones. Like international refugee law, the U.S. asylum system is designed to protect vulnerable people from harm.
Lastly, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is not a border policy. It applies to people already in the U.S. whose home countries are unsafe due to conflict or disaster. Extending TPS does not “invite” migration; it protects people from being deported into danger.
Immigration challenges in the U.S. are real, but solutions require legal reform, global and regional cooperation, and serious investment in processing capacity, not scapegoating humanitarian approaches or mischaracterizing complex policies.
The USA needs open borders and global cooperation. Open borders are also about security, focusing on humans. Insisting on "hard borders" results in dangers and suffering but also in "tough border paradox" = more fences, walls, guards = more people trying to cross dangerously and illegally https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/4421/seven-reasons-why-there-should-be-open-borders/
One of the main problems with illegal immigration is that the category illegal is existing. Why do you think that humans should be categorised in legal and illegal?
A challenge for liberal democracy regards global problems. Supporters of liberal democracy often argue that it was developed with the nation-state and even nationalism. However, the reality is that nation-states and national democracies are not able and often are not willing to create and promote global-level solutions. That is why when it comes to migration, nations often try to stop the problem at the border instead of solving it through regional, transnational, and global cooperation and institutions.
Many who voted for Trump and especially his "intellectual" supporters, are not in favor of limited government. They just want smaller or bigger government depending on what they feel or think is good or bad
Prior to the election 65% to 75% of the electorate thought the country was moving in the wrong direction. Trump is the Bull in a China shop breaking the plates. I agree with Frank Lee Persuasion needs to stop being just another whining media outlet. Screw the politics of correction, we need to figure out what needs to be done first. The problem with democracy is and always has been that it leads to a mobocracy. The only check on that was having the Senate appointed by the State legislatures, that was abolished, and the mobs incited by political promises of free stuff took over. Let's hope Trump breaks a lot of plates, just not too many of the antique ones of value.
Historically, the US was highly effective and China was not. In 1968, the US was in the final stages of the moon landing and China was being torn apart by the Cultural Revolution. What about now? China has 25,000+ miles of HSR, the US has 0.
China has the Gaokao and doesn’t apologize for it. In the US the ACT/SAT are denounced as “racist”.
Agreed Kevin. More of the same just wasn’t working well enough, particularly for the lower & middle classes in the U.S. for several decades. Some serious changes were called for, and some serious changes are being made. The Dept. of Education, initially a gift to teachers unions for votes, has done nothing to improve education. Public education has been in a serious decline ever since DofEduc. creation. It will not be missed. Too many other examples to post here. Yes, many folks in the public sector are going to be hurt with job losses. Sorry, but that’s life and they’ll recover when they learn to work in the private sector. This article’s author needs to chill; the sky is not falling.
Do you have any evidence for your claims here? As regarding public education ?
The NAEP data don't show any boosts from the DOE. The NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) is only the 'Gold Standard' of measures.
This does not fit into a Persuasion model. To persuade me, first there would need an acknowledgement that problems exist. Then there would need to be a focus on the alternative for how these problems could be solved. What I am reading a screeching, emotive dump of criticism of the bold Trump leadership to try and fix what is broken... and the inferred persuasion is to keep everything status quo.
Sorry, but this isn't the level of quality that I expect for Persuasion. Maybe change the name to "The Ranting"
Frank, it is hard to persuade individuals like you because of authoritarian dynamics and similar psychological problems.
Not so Vlad. Try logic instead of lazy invective.
I again hear no alternative but just more predictions. I would like to hear what a new deal for 2028 would be. I understand people fear any change. But you if you don’t like where we are, come up with something better. Certainly, going backwards isn’t the answer. I willingly to listen if you have something instructive to say.
"Enormous problems like undocumented immigration and the opioid epidemic fester for years with no effective solution."
This not entirely the fault of a sclerotic administrative state. Under the Biden administration, policy decisions, influenced by advisors and activists, contributed to the immigration problem as follows:
Certain policies, often influenced by immigration activists and progressive advisors, created incentives for migrants to cross the border illegally:
Catch and Release Policies: Under multiple administrations, migrants apprehended at the border have often been released into the U.S. with notices to appear in immigration court rather than being detained or swiftly deported. Activists pushed for these policies, arguing that detention was inhumane. The result has been a system where many migrants fail to appear in court, contributing to a growing undocumented population.
Limiting Deportations: Under Biden, deportations have were deprioritized for many categories of undocumented immigrants, a shift driven by progressive activists advocating for a more lenient approach.
Biden’s Early Messaging: During the 2020 campaign and early presidency, Biden criticized Trump’s strict border policies and promised a more humane approach. This was interpreted by many migrants as an open invitation to cross the border.
Refusal to Call the Situation a Crisis: Activists and advisors pushed administrations to frame illegal immigration in humanitarian rather than security terms, downplaying the scale of the problem.
Ending the "Remain in Mexico" Policy: This Trump-era policy, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases were processed, was ended under Biden, leading to a surge in border crossings.
Reversing Safe Third Country Agreements: The Trump administration negotiated agreements with Central American countries to require migrants to seek asylum in the first safe country they reached. These agreements were ended under Biden, allowing more migrants to head directly to the U.S. border.
Expanding Asylum Eligibility: By broadening the criteria for asylum, advisors made it easier for economic migrants to claim asylum, even if they don’t meet traditional requirements.
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Extensions: Extensions of TPS for countries with longstanding crises mean that people who entered illegally can remain indefinitely, creating an incentive for others to come.
Turning to the opioid epidemic, there were regulatory and government failures. In approving OxyContin, the FDA relied on misleading data about its addictiveness provided by the maker. The DEA and FDA were slow to act, even as overdose deaths surged. The CDC only issued new opioid prescribing guidelines in 2016, long after widespread addiction had taken hold.
But consider the other factors that caused the epidemic to fester:
Aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies;
Overprescription by doctors;
Drug distributors (e.g., McKesson, Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen) flooded communities with opioids, failing to report suspicious orders.
Large pharmacy chains like Walgreens and CVS dispensed excessive amounts of opioids without proper oversight.
Slow Public Awareness & Policy Response
It took years for the public to recognize opioids as a crisis because addiction often started with legally prescribed drugs.
The government response was sluggish, treating addiction as a criminal issue rather than a public health emergency.
Profit Motive in Treatment & Recovery
Even as the crisis grew, addiction treatment remained expensive and inaccessible, with many programs relying on abstinence-only models rather than evidence-based treatments like methadone or buprenorphine.
Impact of the Legal System
Lawsuits against Purdue Pharma and other opioid manufacturers took decades to play out, with settlements arriving far too late to prevent the worst damage.
The idea of "catch and release" is a political slogan, not a legal term. In reality, many migrants are released because the U.S. simply lacks the detention capacity to hold all asylum seekers, especially families and children. Moreover, U.S. law gives people the right to seek asylum regardless of how they enter the country. Studies have shown that most asylum seekers appear for court hearings, especially when given legal guidance and support.
Deportation priorities under Biden have shifted but not eliminated. The administration has chosen to focus limited resources on removing individuals who pose threats to public safety or national security rather than trying to remove as many undocumented immigrants as possible. This is a strategic law enforcement choice, not a move toward “open borders.”
Blaming Biden’s campaign messaging for increased migration also lacks evidence. Migration patterns have surged under multiple presidents, including Trump, and are driven primarily by poverty, violence, climate change, and instability in countries of origin. Suggesting that desperate families make life-altering decisions based on a U.S. campaign speech is overly simplistic.
Ending the "Remain in Mexico" policy and the Safe Third Country agreements was a legal and humanitarian correction. These policies exposed asylum seekers—including families and children—to violence, extortion, and abuse in dangerous border zones. Numerous human rights organizations documented these harms, and U.S. courts questioned their legality.
It’s also important to clarify that expanding asylum eligibility means interpreting existing legal categories, such as persecution based on political opinion or social groups, and not creating new ones. Like international refugee law, the U.S. asylum system is designed to protect vulnerable people from harm.
Lastly, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is not a border policy. It applies to people already in the U.S. whose home countries are unsafe due to conflict or disaster. Extending TPS does not “invite” migration; it protects people from being deported into danger.
Immigration challenges in the U.S. are real, but solutions require legal reform, global and regional cooperation, and serious investment in processing capacity, not scapegoating humanitarian approaches or mischaracterizing complex policies.
The Axios data shows a clear pattern. Biden is very guilty. Trump is winning. See "Border crossings plunge to lowest levels in decades: New data".
The USA needs open borders and global cooperation. Open borders are also about security, focusing on humans. Insisting on "hard borders" results in dangers and suffering but also in "tough border paradox" = more fences, walls, guards = more people trying to cross dangerously and illegally https://www.democracywithoutborders.org/4421/seven-reasons-why-there-should-be-open-borders/
One of the main problems with illegal immigration is that the category illegal is existing. Why do you think that humans should be categorised in legal and illegal?
A challenge for liberal democracy regards global problems. Supporters of liberal democracy often argue that it was developed with the nation-state and even nationalism. However, the reality is that nation-states and national democracies are not able and often are not willing to create and promote global-level solutions. That is why when it comes to migration, nations often try to stop the problem at the border instead of solving it through regional, transnational, and global cooperation and institutions.
Many who voted for Trump and especially his "intellectual" supporters, are not in favor of limited government. They just want smaller or bigger government depending on what they feel or think is good or bad
Prior to the election 65% to 75% of the electorate thought the country was moving in the wrong direction. Trump is the Bull in a China shop breaking the plates. I agree with Frank Lee Persuasion needs to stop being just another whining media outlet. Screw the politics of correction, we need to figure out what needs to be done first. The problem with democracy is and always has been that it leads to a mobocracy. The only check on that was having the Senate appointed by the State legislatures, that was abolished, and the mobs incited by political promises of free stuff took over. Let's hope Trump breaks a lot of plates, just not too many of the antique ones of value.
Hope for what? For mobocracy?
I have a standard comment on this.
“China is very good at building dams,
the US is very good at enforcing PC,
which system will prevail in the 21st century”
Historically, the US was highly effective and China was not. In 1968, the US was in the final stages of the moon landing and China was being torn apart by the Cultural Revolution. What about now? China has 25,000+ miles of HSR, the US has 0.
China has the Gaokao and doesn’t apologize for it. In the US the ACT/SAT are denounced as “racist”.