State of the Union 2026

I stayed up late last night to watch President Trump's State of the Union Speech. In curiosity, I even stayed tuned for the rebuttal by Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger of Virginia. I would have to say that rather than giving a speech, Trump put on a performance, a performance that unlike most State of the Union addresses was hard not to watch despite its length. 

Thinking about it this morning, I looked back on old Weekly Bystander posts and found that I had forgotten that Trump had given a spectacular performance in his first State of the Union address back in 2017. Then, even liberal opponents had to give him credit. I wrote,

Donald Trump and his political advisors put together a brilliant speech Tuesday night in his address to the Congress. David Brooks on PBS gave him an “A”, and even liberal commentator Mark Shields had to grudgingly give him a  “C+”. Trump touched all the high points of his familiar message but did it in such a fashion as to make even liberal commentators say that he appeared “Presidential.” 

He also used with great effect the touching stories of some ordinary Americans who had been invited to attend, a practice used by many previous Presidents in State of the Union messages. Their stories were heart-warming and even heart wrenching.

 If anything, the stories in 2026 were even more heart wrenching. Who will ever forget the Marine standing at attention despite his wounded legs, and receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor for his role in leading the Maduro raid.

Today, I do worry, just as I did in 2017, that Trump’s promises may have set the bar too high. If he can deliver on his promises and fulfill his lofty vision for America, he will be one of the greatest Presidents in history. I know it is good to set goals and aim high but now President Trump will have to deliver. I do not think it will be an easy task given the state of the Union today.

There will be vicious battles in many of our states as the mid-term elections approach. Governor Spanberger's speech was practically a declaration of war. We have a fleet prepared to attack Iran if negotiations fail, but it seems that the Democratic opposition rather than supporting the President's foreign policies  would like them to fail. 

I think my conclusion in 2017 is still appropriate today. I wrote,

I have to admit that when I hear a brilliant speech delivered by a real pro like Trump, I have mixed feelings. It was hard not to be inspired by his message but at the same time, I had to wonder. Could Trump just be, as some suspect, a con man? I don’t think so. It is more likely that he could be a con man who has been converted by his own message or cause in the manner of film characters such as  Professor Harold Hill in “The Music Man," or Gary Cooper in Frank Capra’s masterpiece, “Meet John Doe." However, both these fictional characters were down and out drifters before they rose to prominence. Trump was a billionaire businessman as well as a celebrity already.

I like to think that Trump is more in the line of a wealthy Renaissance merchant who realizes that he must attain political power not only to preserve and protect what he and his family have gained over a lifetime, but also to preserve and protect the city or country that have done so much for him and his family.

The true test of the Trump administration will be on how much it can deliver. If President Trump can just deliver on a third of his promises, it will be a successful Presidency. Batting .333 is good in any league. I hope commentators will begin to focus on what the Trump administration is actually doing, and not on what they fear he will do.*

###

*Note: I do think the President could have done a better job last night in his discussion of fraud in Minnesota. Instead of blaming the whole Somali community in Minneapolis, he could have explained that the fraudsters did not just defraud taxpayers, but they kept aid from reaching people in need. Money intended for hungry children, for education, and for those suffering from autism was diverted and often sent abroad. Their Governor, their Attorney General, their representatives in Congress all failed to protect the needy in Minnesota. 

Epstein Files

Epstein Files

I have not been willing or able to go through even one page of the 3 million pages of the Epstein files recently released by the Justice Department. Nor have I been interested enough or informed enough to write about the story on The Weekly Bystander. However, in last week’s Wall Street Journal Barton Swaim, a regular columnist on the op-ed pages, gave an excellent summary of the evidence. Here are some highlights. 

In the first place, he noted that the latest release included an earlier assessment of the case by the FBI that “found no evidence in Epstein’s residence and bank accounts of a trafficking ring or of “sex videos” supposedly used for blackmail.” In short, to the dismay of conspiracy seekers on both sides, 

There was in the end, no sex-slave ring, no blackmail operation, no cameras recording dalliances for later use, no client list, just a deeply sick and rich predator with a few enablers.

Secondly, the new documents seem to contain no evidence that Donald Trump “cavorted with Epstein and his harem.” Indeed, Swaim noted the presence of a document from 2006 detailing a phone call from Trump to the Palm Beach Chief of Police where Trump indicated he knew about Epstein’s behavior and “thought it vile.”  Trump told the Chief that on one occasion he was with Epstein, but when some teenage girls appeared, “he got the hell out of there.” Swaim also believes that there is nothing in the files that really can harm ex-President Bill Clinton.  

However, there seems to be a whole group of lesser fry that are exposed by the Epstein files. Swaim notes that there was “a circle of well-connected, wealthy and politically liberal men who looked past Epstein’s taste in girls and remained on friendly terms with this charming, lavishly generous and intellectually conversant epicure.” These men, “liberal VIPs in media, tech, and politics… all held conventional liberal opinions and gave lavishly to liberal causes and Democratic candidates.” Practically every day since the release of the files, headlines tell of resignations from prominent positions by member of this liberal elite. 

I have wondered why the Epstein files were never released during the Biden administration. Could it be because Democrats in the Justice Department knew there was nothing in them to implicate Domald Trump, but that there was plenty to implicate liberal Democrats. Only Trump hatred could have led them to demand the release of the files once the President was back in office. They hoped to find something that would disgrace the President, but so far, no luck.

###

Note: It is amazing that our government somehow amassed 3 million pages of documents on this one individual. Even more amazing is the fact that people in and out of the government have spent, and continue to spend countless hours going through these files. This looks like a job for AI.

Success Sequence

 

Wendy Wang

The obvious success of Asian immigrants to this country is hard to square with a systemic racism narrative. If there is systemic racism in America, why do the children of Asian immigrants do so well that American universities have to take measures to prevent too many Asian students from being admitted?  Below is a post written a few years ago that tried to answer the question. **************************

It’s college admissions time in the USA again, and letters of acceptance and rejection are being mailed out. Inevitably, elite colleges and universities will find themselves overwhelmed with extremely qualified applicants with Asian backgrounds. It has long been suspected that admissions offices impose quotas to keep the number of Asian students down. On the other hand, affirmative action administrators  will bend over backwards to find qualified black applicants. 

Why do Asian students do so well in school while black students do so badly? It is easy to blame prejudice and racism but my own experience has led me to believe that the reason is cultural. A Wall Street Journal op-ed by Wendy Wang, the Director of Research at the Institute for Family Studies, bore out my suspicions. 

Ms. Wang argued that there is a “sequence” that must be followed to achieve success in rising out of poverty. The sequence begins with education, at least a high school diploma, followed by a job, and only then marriage and children. There will be exceptions but her research shows that failure to follow this sequence results in a high probability of a life of poverty or worse. In other words, if children come before marriage, work, and education the results are disastrous.

Wang cited statistics concerning so-called millennials from a study that tracked young adults from their teenage years to early adulthood. Of those who failed to follow the “sequence”, 53% were in poverty. The rate dropped to 31% for those who had at least a high school diploma, and 16% for those with a full-time job. Finally, the poverty rate dropped to 3% for those who held off having children until married.

Interestingly, the success sequence worked extremely well for young adults from low income backgrounds. “Eighty percent of those with lower income backgrounds made it into middle or upper income brackets when they followed all three steps.” Missing one of the steps or putting them out of sequence, like having children before marriage, led to a very high probability of failure.

Ms. Wang cited her own Asian background. In the small Chinese city in which she grew up there were practically no childbirths before marriage. It was unthinkable. Today in China, Japan, and South Korea the out of wedlock birthrate is only 4%. Compare that rate to America’s urban centers where the out of wedlock births often exceed children born to married couples.

I know a young woman with a degree in elementary education from a fine college who started her teaching career as a first grade teacher in a Bridgeport school made up largely of black and hispanic children. Her college degree could not have prepared her for the chaos she encountered on her first day. Every day presented new pathological personal and social behaviors, and these were only first graders. In many ways, first grade is pivotal for it is then that the mind is ready to learn how to read. If the opportunity is missed, students will inevitably fall behind and never catch up.

Sadly and significantly, the teacher told me that on Parent’s Night, only four parents showed up to hear about their child’s progress. Maybe parent is the wrong word because most of these Bridgeport first graders didn’t have parents. They were being raised by grandparents some of whom were not even in their forties. Sometimes even great-grandparents were the caregivers for these children. Moreover, in most cases there were no men involved in the raising of these children. 

No amount of money will rectify the tremendous social disaster that has taken place in American cities in the past few generations. Unwed teenage pregnancies create an almost impossible educational problem. To get an education certificate today, teachers have to take courses that would almost qualify them as master psychologists. 

Even the best teachers will not be able to overcome this cultural disaster.  There is a high probability that the parentless first grader will come to regard school as a prison and even before he or she gets to eight grade they will likely be attacking classmates and teachers, and destroying school property. Next, the probability is also very high that they will join a street gang, become a drug addict or dealer, and eventually wind up in jail or dead on the street.

Some will argue that Ms. Wang’s “sequence” success formula of education, work, marriage, and children is old fashioned. Actually, the success formula she finds in Asia was once the norm in the USA, especially among that generation that we now fondly recall as the “greatest generation.” Some may also argue that just getting an education and a job is sufficient for success, and that marriage and children are no longer necessary. However, another recent news article indicated that there is an epidemic of loneliness and depression sweeping over the country today that seems to indicate that love and marriage are still part of the success sequence.

### 

Political Hatred

In a recent column in the Wall Street Journal, Holman Jenkins cautioned MAGA supporters against falling in love with a politician. Good advice, but he failed to mention that it is perhaps even more unwise to hate a politician. Coincidentally, about the same time a letter to the Journal cited the words of Michael Corleone in the Godfather, "Don't hate your enemies, it clouds your judgment." These words brought to mind a post I had written about political hatred back in 2022 during the Trump interregnum. ***************************

In my quiet suburban neighborhood, I sometimes come across lawn signs that read, "HATE HAS NO HOME HERE." Nevertheless, in the past few years I have never witnessed so much hatred in my town and in my country as has been directed at former President Donald Trump. Like all hatred it seems visceral rather than reasonable. It is as if a large part of the population has received a political vaccination that enables the political immune system to form an immediate and violent reaction to even the mention of his name. 

During the election when I questioned my neighbors about their Trump animosity, they invariably replied that they just could not stand the man, no matter what he might have accomplished in office. They could not even bring themselves to acknowledge that he might have accomplished even one good thing as President. He has been our of power for more than a year but still my Internet home page features almost daily anti-Trump headlines.

I have been thinking about this Trump hatred phenomenon for awhile, and recently I found as good an explanation as I have ever read in a biography of Sir Robert Walpole, an English politician of almost 300 years ago. It would appear that Walpole was as larger than life as Donald Trump, and just as hated despite his accomplishments. Below is J.H. Plumb's concluding appraisal of Walpole that brought Trump and his haters to mind. 

All that he does and says in the early thirties argues a growing inflexibility of temperament, a greediness to grasp and exercise power; the anxiety lessens, and the future is contemplated less than the present. As a young man his contemporaries spoke of his gaiety, of his ebullient life, of the warmth and spontaneity of his nature. Some of this he never lost. Although he could be the most affable of men, quick to respond to his defeated enemies, this should not blind us to the essential ruthless nature of his political actions. Where he differed from many great men who have wielded political power as great as his, is this: he did not require the death or even exile of men who had vainly crossed his path. Their complete political impotence was all he desired. Nor did great power make him secretive or remote or grossly suspicious of his close friends. … He was available to all from field marshals to ensigns, admirals to midshipmen, archbishops to curates, princes to merchants, so long as they were prepared to wait patiently in the throng that daily besieged his doors. And to his colleagues, and to the Court, he remained open-hearted, generous almost to a fault, retaining his delight in ostentatious display, in gargantuan meals and vast potations; his coarseness, his love of lecherous sally, grew rather than diminished with the years… His frankness, his lack of pretentiousness, were nevertheless tinged with vulgarity, with a gross enjoyment, with almost a delight in stimulating the envy of men. 

Certainly that envy was stirred, more profoundly, more publicly than is the common lot of great men of state. He was hated more for being himself than for his conduct of affairs. Not only was his power resented… his whole manner of life bred detestation wherever he went. He paraded his wealth with ever greater ostentation. He bought pictures at reckless prices, wallowed in the extravagance of Houghton, deluged his myriad guests with rare food and costly wine; his huge ungainly figure sparkled with diamonds and flashed with satin. And he gloried in his power, spoke roughly if not ungenerously of others, and let the whole world know that he was master. Such a way of life invited criticism on a personal level. All the opposition press reveled in portraying the grossness of Walpole’s life; ballads were sung of his ill-gotten wealth; obscene caricatures illustrated his relations with the Queen; bitter pamphlets laid bare the graft, the corruption, the favourtism of his regime…. Year in, year out the gutter Press squirted its filth over his reputation. His friends did little better, the institutions by which he governed worse…. His sole aim in life was to amass gold and aggrandize his family. Day after day, week after week, month after month, this twisted and malicious criticism never ceased: and embedded in the heart of the sludge was a grain of truth, enough indeed for this uncontrolled  propaganda to carry with it a certain conviction. The good that he did—the stability, the peace, the prosperity, were taken for granted—the evil magnified to phantom proportions.

Public life and the institutions of government were thereby brought into disrepute: by 1734 Parliament had lost much of the respect it had enjoyed in the early years of the century; an ever franker acceptance of the greedier side of human nature strengthened self-seeking, weakened altruism and vulgarized politics, until critical issues of state became a matter of personal vendetta…. Each year that Walpole remained in power lowered the standards of public life, for the vituperation and criticism were as responsible as the long years of power for hardening his nature and coarsening his response to life.

###

J. H. Plumb. Sir Robert Walpole, the King’s Minister. 1961. Pp. 330-332.