September 5, 2026

Maybe We Should Interview Presidents Differently

by Steve Dana

Every four years America conducts the most expensive job interview in the world.

The 2028 presidential election may sound like it’s still a long way off. It isn’t. Once we get through the midterm elections this fall, the next presidential campaign will begin taking shape almost immediately. Candidates will start testing messages, courting donors, building organizations and introducing themselves to the American people. Before they spend the next two years telling us why they deserve the job, maybe this is a good time for us—the people doing the hiring—to decide what qualifications we’re looking for.

And I’m beginning to wonder whether we ask the right questions.

We ask presidential candidates where they stand on abortion, taxes, immigration, guns, climate change, foreign policy, Social Security and a hundred other issues. Republicans want to know whether the candidate is conservative enough. Democrats want to know whether theirs is progressive enough. Interest groups have scorecards. Donors have priorities. Activists have litmus tests.

But the person we elect will become the chief executive of the United States.

Maybe somewhere along the way we ought to ask:

What have you actually run?

That question seems almost embarrassingly simple.

Yet we have spent most of my lifetime electing professional politicians to an executive position unlike any other on earth.

Why This Matters

The President of the United States is responsible for an executive branch that spends trillions of dollars, employs millions of people directly and indirectly, negotiates with allies and adversaries, oversees the military, responds to disasters, enforces federal law and makes decisions that can affect American lives for generations.

This isn’t an honorary position.

It isn’t a reward for giving the best speech.

And it shouldn’t be the final promotion in a political career.

We ought to care whether the person asking for the job has demonstrated some ability to do the job.

Donald Trump, for all his faults, forced me to think differently about that.

I don’t believe America needs another Donald Trump.

I do believe America should learn something from having elected him.

The Professional Political Résumé

For most of modern history, we have treated government experience as one of the principal qualifications for the presidency.

A candidate served in the House.

Then the Senate.

Maybe became governor.

Perhaps served as vice president.

He accumulated twenty or thirty years in public life and eventually we were told that all that experience made him ready for the Oval Office.

Maybe.

But experience doing what?

Political professionals become very good at politics. They learn how to raise money, assemble coalitions, make speeches, win elections, work committees, negotiate legislation and satisfy constituencies.

Those are useful skills.

But they aren’t the same skills required to run the largest, most consequential  organizations in the world.

A senator doesn’t have to make payroll.

Congress can spend more money than it collects year after year and call the result a budget.

A business owner who tries that long enough gets introduced to his banker under less pleasant circumstances.

Political professionals spend enormous amounts of money, but almost none of it belongs to them. They make decisions affecting businesses they have never operated and employees they have never hired.

And when a government program fails?

Nobody goes broke.

Nobody loses the house.

Nobody tells the family that the business is gone because Dad made the wrong decision.

They hold a hearing.

Then they appropriate some more money.

That is a very different education from the education received by someone whose mistakes have consequences.

Failure Is Experience Too

One criticism of Donald Trump has always been that some of his business ventures failed.

That’s true.

But I’m not sure failure is always the disqualification we pretend it is.

I’ve been in business. Failure teaches things success never gets around to mentioning.

You hire the wrong person.

You misjudge the market.

You borrow too much.

You trust somebody you shouldn’t have trusted.

You make a deal that looked wonderful on paper and discover reality forgot to read the proposal.

Then you live with it.

Trump has had spectacular successes and spectacular failures. Whatever else we think of him, he has operated in an environment where decisions have consequences.

That matters.

I’d like presidential candidates to be able to answer a question we rarely ask:

Tell me about something you really screwed up. What did it cost you, and what did you learn?

I’d learn more from that answer than from another rehearsed speech about their vision for America.

The Pragmatist

Years ago I came across a piece falsely attributed to Charles Krauthammer arguing that Trump was neither really liberal nor conservative, but a pragmatist.

Krauthammer didn’t write it. The attribution was bogus.

But the thought stuck with me.

A pragmatist sees a problem and asks how to solve it.

Not: What is the Republican solution?

Not: What is the Democratic solution?

What works?

The bogus essay argued that immigration isn’t fundamentally a Republican or Democratic problem. Neither are trade, debt or economic decline. They are American problems requiring workable solutions.

That idea is bigger than Donald Trump.

In fact, I hope it eventually outlives him.

One of the frustrations of modern politics is that ideology too often dictates the permitted solution before anybody finishes defining the problem.

Democrats and Republicans have constituents they must satisfy.

And frequently those constituents are not the voters.

The political class develops priorities that frequently aren’t the priorities of the people paying the bills.

Then everybody retreats to their corner and calls the stalemate principle.

Maybe we could use more pragmatists.

The Art of the Deal

As painful as it may be for some people to admit, Trump’s The Art of the Deal contains another qualification we should think about when selecting presidents.

Negotiation.

Trump sees negotiations differently from most politicians.

He understands leverage.

He understands opening positions.

He understands that the first proposal doesn’t necessarily have to be the final proposal.

He understands that sometimes you begin by asking for something outrageous because doing so changes the boundaries of the conversation.

Some of Trump’s proposals sound preposterous.

Sometimes they probably are preposterous.

Trump is fully capable of saying something ridiculous without having formulated a master strategy beforehand.

But it is equally foolish to assume that every outrageous opening is proof that he hasn’t thought about what comes next.

An extreme opening position can establish an anchor.

It can force the opponent to react to your proposal instead of allowing you to react to his.

It can reveal what the other side really values.

And it can create room for an eventual agreement that would have looked impossible before the negotiation began.

Trump also understands something politicians frequently forget:

Sometimes no deal is better than a bad deal.

Government officials often enter negotiations under tremendous pressure to produce an agreement. If everyone knows you must return home waving a signed document, your opponent already possesses leverage.

A businessman learns that occasionally the most powerful word in a negotiation is no.

I don’t need the next president to have Trump’s personality.

But I’d like him to understand leverage.

The Trouble With Trump

None of this requires pretending Donald Trump doesn’t come with enough baggage to fill an airport carousel.

He can be crass.

He is vain.

His ego enters the room several minutes before the rest of him.

He turns disagreements into personal battles that never needed to happen.

He can insult somebody who might have helped him ten minutes later.

His discipline leaves something to be desired.

And sometimes his mouth obscures a perfectly legitimate argument.

Trump’s supporters occasionally make the mistake of believing that because his enemies exaggerate his faults, we have to pretend those faults don’t exist.

We don’t.

Trump can behave like a buffoon.

But he’s no dummy.

And confusing those two things can be a serious mistake.

The characteristics that make Trump difficult can sometimes make him effective.

His unpredictability creates chaos, but it can also prevent opponents from knowing exactly what he will do.

His ego creates unnecessary conflict, but it also makes him difficult to intimidate.

His willingness to violate political conventions can be embarrassing, but it also allows him to question assumptions that professional politicians stopped questioning years ago.

His stubbornness can prevent compromise.

It can also prevent surrender.

The trick for the future isn’t finding another Trump.

It is identifying which characteristics were valuable and finding them in somebody with better self-control.

The Candidate After Trump

The next round of interviews is about to begin. Suppose this time we interviewed presidential candidates differently.

What have you built?

What have you run?

How many people have depended upon your decisions for their livelihood?

Have you ever been responsible for a real budget you couldn’t simply increase?

Have you negotiated when your own money or reputation was at risk?

Have you ever hired somebody smarter than you?

Have you fired somebody you personally liked because they couldn’t do the job?

When did you abandon a plan because the facts showed it wasn’t working?

Tell us about your biggest failure.

Tell us what it cost you.

Tell us what you learned.

And perhaps most importantly:

Can you listen to experts without becoming captive to them?

A President needs experts.

Nobody understands everything from nuclear weapons to epidemiology to monetary policy to artificial intelligence.

But experts advise.

Presidents decide.

The adviser can write another paper explaining why his theory should have worked.

The President has to live with what actually happened.

I’d like a President capable of listening carefully to the smartest people in the room and then asking:

That’s a fine theory. Does the damned thing work?

What We Should Keep

Our MAGA discussions have repeatedly led me to the same conclusion.

Trump and the ideas associated with him don’t have to remain permanently attached to one another.

Some of the ideas are bigger than the man.

So are some of the lessons about leadership.

Maybe presidential experience should include more than government service.

Maybe building something matters.

Maybe meeting payroll matters.

Maybe negotiating matters.

Maybe failure matters.

Maybe accountability matters.

Maybe having operated in the real world, where arithmetic eventually wins every argument, matters too.

And then let’s add the qualities we wish Trump possessed in greater quantity.

Humility.

Discipline.

Temperament.

The ability to hear criticism without treating it as betrayal.

The ability to admit error without believing the admission makes him weak.

Confidence without constant self-celebration.

Strength without needless cruelty.

Pragmatism without chaos.

Imagine a candidate with substantial executive experience, negotiating ability, an understanding of risk and accountability, the willingness to challenge stale assumptions—and enough humility and discipline not to make every issue about himself.

That sounds like somebody worth interviewing.

Every four years Americans are told we are choosing the most powerful leader in the world.

Maybe it’s time we stopped conducting the interview as though we’re selecting the chairman of a political club.

The presidency is an executive job.

We ought to start hiring accordingly.

FIND ME FOR LONG FORM PUNDITRY AT SUBSTACK AS WELL http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com/

September 5, 2026

We get what we deserve if we don’t bother to serve.

by Steve Dana

I was sitting in church last week in my normal spot, second from the back row because I’m not a back bencher.  You cannot avoid overhearing what people around you are saying when you are sitting in church.

There was a group of older ladies talking about their dismay and disappointment with the way kids are these days but how happy they were knowing that their children were raised in the church so they weren’t “that way”.

I couldn’t help but speculate how their kids were.  But then it occurred to me that even though their kids were raised in the church, they were citizens of the world and away from the church, their kids had to compete with other kids who didn’t have the benefit of Christian teaching.  And even then, temptations of the world are the biggest magnet for pulling kids raised in the church away and into the secular world.  That learning the lessons in Sunday School might expose you to God’s messages, but that alone didn’t prevent other “preachers” from offering competing ideas.

So who are those other preachers?  Well, our public school system is the place we send our kids to learn.  So the preachers who are in the pulpit most of your kid’s life are teachers in whatever school your kids attend.  If your kids go to Sunday School on Sunday then go to public schools Monday through Friday, which one do you think will have the greater influence?

That’s right, the teachers in the public schools have your kid’s attention five or six or seven hours during the day, five days per week.  Under ideal circumstances, those teachers are exposing the class to Reading, Writing and Arithmetic along with Science, History and Social Studies.  If you teach a kid to read, that child can accomplish almost anything.  If you can’t read, you will be challenged to learn any of the other essentials.  If you can read, you can teach yourself almost anything.  If the public school system has one mission, it’s to teach kids to read.  And yet, the failure rate for elementary school age children in learning to read has never been higher than today.

This little rant is one I often land on.  If education has one vital function, it’s to teach reading and reading is the heart of our body of learning.  Give a kid a weak heart and he will be handicapped the rest of his life.

Because I am a pundit, I wanted to insert myself into that conversation in church, but I did not.  I didn’t have to bite my tongue, I just sat there silently.

Kids raised in the church on Sunday and in a Christian school during the week have a better chance of being a competent reader than kids in public schools because in my view, if you can’t read, you can’t read your Bible.  But being in a Christian school doesn’t guarantee a Christian education.

Who makes the decision about who is teaching our kids and what they are being taught matters.  The people in decision making positions decide who and what will be taught.  So in your circle of influence, who is making those decisions?  Do you know the names of your school board members?  Do you know any of them personally?  How about the principal at your kid’s elementary school?  How about your kid’s teacher?

You put your kids into the care of these people and you probably don’t know enough about them to say with confidence they are teaching my kids the things they will need to know to be successful in the world or conversely, that they are not teaching your kids things that will undermine the values you think are important in your family.

I have to admit, today, I do not know the names of the school board members in our school district.  My daughter and her kids are all well past public school age.  I will say that when they were in school I did know most of the people in those positions.

Not everyone knows that typically, your public school district is the largest employer and business entity in your community. 

When I shot my mouth off in 1987 and was critical of the city, I ran for city council because I thought my ideas made more sense than the ones I saw coming out of city hall.  It could just as easily been a run for the school board.

I saw my local government heading in the wrong direction and rather than staying quiet, I spoke up and ran for office.  I was advised by people I respect to stay quiet because I was in business in town.  I answered with a typical STEVE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY answer.  “The reason we are in this pickle today is because we stayed quiet and the ones now making the decisions have their own agenda.”

And that is my core message in everything I write about.  The decisions that affect every aspect of our lives are made by the people at the table or the ones out in front.  From 1987 until 2021, I served in some capacity governing the city of Snohomish Washington.  Not because I they couldn’t get someone else to do it, but because the other people wanting the job had a different agenda than mine.

I put my business and my family at risk because I believed serving is our obligation and because a number of the other people wanting the jobs believed in different principles.

I recently wrote about Capitalism vs Progressivism.  I am the Capitalist, they are the Progressives.  A city’s first obligation is public safety.  If people are not safe, what other function can a city provide that makes living there worth the risk?  For all my years in government, I prioritized economic development because I understood that services like public safety (cops and firefighters) are paid for with taxes and in our state, sales taxes coming to the city are the life blood of spending.  Are you with me?  I’m the Capitalist on the council.  I’m focused on making money for the city.  Many of my council colleagues were the Progressives.  All they could care about was how to spend the money.  Sadly today, nearly all the council members are Progressives.

I ran for office because I thought, If not me, then who?  Remember, I’m a near back bencher so that little pearl resonated with me.  Send me Lord.

The most impactful lesson I learned during my thirty-four years of public service was the importance of showing up, to serve, to criticize and offer alternatives or to support the ones that do.

I started this essay today talking about learning to read and reading our Bibles and who is teaching our kids.  If I had been motivated to run for school board rather than city council, my life would be different today and my school district would be different as well.  The people sitting in those school board seats have a lot to do with what your kids are taught and what they are not taught.  The quality of education in our country is determined by the ones who show up; to run for school board, to serve in the PTA to serve as a volunteer or teacher’s aid.  Multiply that obligation by the number of school districts in the state or the country and you will see the scope of the job.  But the lesson wasn’t a generic who, it was “will it be YOU?”

I don’t want to be too churchy in this, but one of every pastor’s core messages is “Nobody can do everything, but Everybody can do something.”  There is an obligation to serve in some capacity in our churches, our schools, our cities, counties and states.  Nobody is asking you to serve thirty-four years like I did, but you should do your compulsory duty to serve for a few years, even if it’s only during the years when your own kids are in school.

The decisions about what your kids are being taught are made by people who believe things differently than you do.  Are you really surprised when you find out that the kids can’t read, or write, or do arithmetic?  When I was in the restaurant business, I added a simple third grade math test to every job application I passed out to kids applying for work in my restaurant.  If they couldn’t do third grade math as seventeen year old juniors in high school, I couldn’t hire them.  My employees needed to know how to read and do simple math.  And sadly, there were a disappointing number of kids who couldn’t fill out either side of the application.

The ones that showed up made the decisions about which kids were left behind.  Or which ones were dragged along even though they couldn’t read.

Our country today is over run by almost fifty years of “graduates” from the public education system that cannot read or do simple math.  Our education system is cranking out millions of kids heading off to college that cannot read, write a complete sentence or work a simple logic problem.

We get what we settle for.  I was never willing to settle for less because that was all the system required.

If you wonder how you kid will fare in the world with the poor quality of her education, ask yourself one question, “What was MY contribution to a successful outcome for my child?”

Our school systems are screwed because we left the decisions to other people that showed up.  Our city governments, county governments, state governments and our federal government are screwed up because most of us left the decisions to other people who showed up and they got their way and your kids got shafted.

We as a people don’t even bother to participate at the level of voting for the candidates who run for office.  You don’t have to commit for four years, you just have to show up on election day and you won’t even do that.

Those ladies in that group at church don’t realize the ripples on the pools of their lives have such profound effects on their own kids and the others.  We get what we deserve if we don’t bother to serve.

Get off your butts and pitch in doing something for the betterment of your community.  Not only will it serve the now, it will serve the future by modeling positive behavior for your kids who are more likely to serve if they have a parent who served.

I actually wrote a book about public service and why some serve and others do not.  It will be coming out here on my Substack in 2027.

I also have an essay I’m writing about how important education and participation in the system protect and promote liberty and freedom in America.

FIND ME FOR LONG FORM PUNDITRY AT SUBSTACK AS WELL http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com/

August 13, 2026

Reshoring Strategic Manufacturing – What Is The Future of MAGA Part 6

by Steve Dana

America does not need to manufacture everything.

That is not the argument.

No serious person believes every shirt, toy, chair, toaster, television, shoe, appliance, or household item must be made inside the United States. America can trade with the world. We can buy from friendly countries. We can benefit from specialization, competition, and global commerce.

But there are some things a nation must be able to make for itself.

That is the real issue.

America must be able to produce what it cannot afford to be denied.

That sentence belongs near the center of the MAGA framework. It connects manufacturing, national security, jobs, trade, China policy, energy, technology, medicine, defense, and the productive middle class.

It asks a question that should have been asked long before Donald Trump entered politics:

What happens when the United States needs something essential and the country that makes it will not sell it to us?

A serious nation does not wait for that question to be answered during a crisis.

Strategic Manufacturing Is Different

There is a difference between ordinary manufacturing and strategic manufacturing.

Ordinary manufacturing produces the goods people use every day. Those goods matter. They create jobs. They support communities. They give people choices. But if America imports some ordinary consumer goods from friendly countries, that is not necessarily a national emergency.

Strategic manufacturing is different.

Strategic manufacturing involves goods, materials, and technologies that are essential to national survival, military readiness, healthcare, energy, communications, transportation, food production, and economic independence.

That includes semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, steel, aluminum, rare-earth processing, grid components, transformers, pipelines, energy equipment, refinery capacity, farm inputs, fertilizer, machine tools, shipbuilding, drones, aircraft parts, vehicles, munitions, weapons systems, communications technology, and critical minerals.

A country that cannot make those things is dependent.

A country that depends on adversaries for those things is vulnerable.

A country that waits until war, pandemic, embargo, cyberattack, shipping disruption, or diplomatic crisis to discover its vulnerability has already failed to think like a nation.

MAGA says America must think like a nation again.

The Lesson of Shortages

Most Americans do not think about supply chains until something is missing.

We go to the store and expect shelves to be full. We go to the pharmacy and expect medicine to be available. We flip a switch and expect electricity. We call a mechanic and expect parts. We assume hospitals have masks, gloves, syringes, drugs, and equipment. We assume the military has ammunition, ships, aircraft, fuel, and repair capacity. We assume farmers have fertilizer, equipment, seed, fuel, and parts.

But those assumptions depend on production.

They depend on factories, mines, refineries, railroads, ports, truckers, warehouses, skilled workers, engineers, machinists, welders, electricians, chemists, technicians, and supply networks.

When supply chains fail, theory ends.

The country suddenly learns where things are made, who controls them, how long replacement takes, and whether American leaders were wise enough to prepare.

A pandemic teaches it.

A war teaches it.

A port shutdown teaches it.

A cyberattack teaches it.

A hostile foreign government teaches it.

A serious country should not need repeated disasters to learn the same lesson.

China and Dangerous Dependence

The most obvious strategic concern is China.

For decades, American leaders allowed the United States to become deeply dependent on China for manufactured goods, medical ingredients, electronics, rare-earth processing, consumer products, industrial components, and supply-chain capacity. Many people justified that dependence by saying trade would make China more open, more cooperative, more prosperous, and more peaceful.

That assumption has not aged well.

China is not merely a low-cost producer. It is a strategic rival. It uses industrial policy, subsidies, currency practices, intellectual-property theft, state-directed companies, military expansion, technology acquisition, and control of critical supply chains to strengthen itself and weaken its competitors.

A country may trade with competitors. But it should not make itself dependent on a rival for goods essential to its survival.

If China can pressure America by restricting access to medicine, minerals, electronics, drone components, batteries, rare-earth materials, or industrial inputs, then America has surrendered leverage.

That is not free trade.

That is strategic negligence.

MAGA insists that America reduce dangerous dependence on China and rebuild domestic capacity in industries essential to national security.

Cheap Is Not Always Cheap

The strongest argument against reshoring is cost.

It may cost more to manufacture some goods in America. American workers earn more. Environmental, safety, tax, and regulatory standards may be higher. Energy costs, land costs, and legal costs may be higher. Other countries may subsidize industries or tolerate practices America rejects.

So yes, some reshored goods may cost more.

The question is whether the cheapest price is always the best measure of national interest.

A cheap medicine is not cheap if we cannot get it during a crisis.

A cheap chip is not cheap if the supply is controlled by a hostile country.

A cheap transformer is not cheap if the electrical grid cannot be repaired after an attack.

A cheap weapon component is not cheap if the military cannot replenish supplies during war.

A cheap imported product is not cheap if the community that once made it loses jobs, families, tax base, skills, and hope.

Price matters. But price is not the only cost.

Dependence has a cost.

Deindustrialization has a cost.

Lost skills have a cost.

Vulnerability has a cost.

National weakness has a cost.

A wise country counts all of the costs, not just the price on the invoice.

Manufacturing Skills Cannot Be Rebuilt Overnight

One reason reshoring matters is that manufacturing capacity cannot be turned on like a light switch.

Factories require land, permits, equipment, capital, power, suppliers, transportation, skilled workers, engineers, management, maintenance, quality control, safety systems, and customers. Supply chains take years to build. Skilled workers take years to train. Industrial culture takes decades to develop.

When America loses a factory, it does not only lose a building.

It loses knowledge.

It loses people who know how to make things.

It loses apprenticeships.

It loses tool-and-die expertise.

It loses machine maintenance.

It loses local suppliers.

It loses engineering experience.

It loses the habit of production.

That matters.

A country that gives up manufacturing may discover too late that writing a purchase order is not the same as making a product. A financial economy can move money instantly. A production economy takes time, skill, discipline, and physical capacity.

MAGA recognizes that productive capability is a national asset.

Once lost, it is expensive and slow to recover.

Reshoring and the Middle Class

Reshoring strategic manufacturing is not only about national security. It is also about rebuilding the productive middle class.

Manufacturing jobs often support family-wage employment for people with practical intelligence and technical skill. Not every citizen needs or wants a four-year college degree. A healthy country should offer honorable pathways through trades, apprenticeships, technical education, military training, community colleges, factory work, energy work, construction, logistics, and small business.

Strategic manufacturing supports those pathways.

It gives young people a reason to learn welding, machining, robotics, electronics, engineering technology, industrial maintenance, trucking, construction, energy systems, quality control, and production management.

It gives towns a reason to believe they have a future.

It gives families income.

It gives workers pride.

It gives communities tax base.

It gives the country resilience.

A nation that values only college credentials and office work wastes human talent. America needs thinkers, builders, makers, fixers, operators, drivers, and doers.

MAGA speaks to those citizens because they are essential to the country.

Policy Tools for Reshoring

Reshoring strategic manufacturing will not happen by wishful thinking. It requires policy choices.

A MAGA platform should consider several tools.

First, America should identify critical industries and supply chains where dependence creates unacceptable risk.

Second, trade policy should discourage dangerous dependence on hostile powers and reward production in the United States or trusted allied countries.

Third, tax policy should encourage domestic investment, plant construction, equipment purchases, research, and hiring.

Fourth, energy policy should provide the affordable and reliable power manufacturing requires.

Fifth, regulation should protect workers and communities without making domestic production impossible.

Sixth, permitting should be faster and more predictable for critical infrastructure, mines, factories, refineries, pipelines, power plants, ports, and transportation systems.

Seventh, vocational education should prepare young people for skilled industrial work.

Eighth, federal purchasing should favor reliable American sources for national-security goods.

Ninth, immigration policy should protect American workers while allowing carefully controlled entry for truly needed skills when domestic training cannot meet immediate demand.

Tenth, China policy should treat industrial dependence as a security issue, not merely a commercial issue.

None of these tools should become an excuse for crony capitalism. Government should not simply hand favors to politically connected corporations. Reshoring policy must be disciplined, measurable, and tied to national interest.

The goal is not corporate welfare.

The goal is national capacity.

Trusted Allies Have a Role

America First does not require America to make every strategic good entirely alone. Trusted allies have a role.

It is reasonable for the United States to build supply chains with countries that share our security interests, respect the rule of law, and can be relied upon in a crisis. North American production, allied production, and domestic production can work together.

But there is a difference between allied supply chains and dependence on adversaries.

There is also a difference between healthy trade and careless outsourcing.

America should cooperate with friends while preserving the ability to act independently when necessary. A resilient supply chain should not have a single point of failure. It should not depend on a hostile government. It should not require America to beg during a crisis.

America First does not mean every product must be American-made.

It means America must never be helpless.

The Environmental Question

Some people object to reshoring because manufacturing can create pollution, industrial risk, mining impacts, and local opposition.

Those concerns are real. America should not return to careless industrial practices that poison air, water, land, or workers. But outsourcing production does not eliminate environmental impact. It often moves it to countries with weaker standards, less transparency, and less accountability.

If a product is necessary, the environmental question is not whether it will be made. It is where, under what standards, and by whom.

Would we rather critical goods be made in America under American law, American oversight, American labor standards, and American environmental protections? Or would we rather pretend to be clean while relying on foreign production we do not see and cannot control?

Responsible reshoring can be cleaner, safer, and more accountable than dependence on foreign production.

Environmental stewardship and domestic production should not be treated as enemies. A serious nation can protect the environment while still making essential goods.

The Moral Question

At its deepest level, reshoring is a moral question.

Do American leaders have an obligation to preserve the country’s ability to support itself?

Do they have an obligation to workers whose communities were damaged by reckless trade and outsourcing?

Do they have an obligation to future generations who may need industries we allowed to disappear?

Do they have an obligation to soldiers who depend on domestic production for weapons, parts, ships, vehicles, and supplies?

Do they have an obligation to patients who need medicine during a crisis?

Do they have an obligation to taxpayers asked to fund a government that failed to plan?

MAGA says yes.

A government that cannot secure essential supply chains has failed in one of its basic duties.

A country that cannot make what it needs is not fully free.

Candidate-Screening Question

The candidate-screening question for this part is:

Will this candidate support policies that restore America’s ability to produce essential goods at home?

That question should be followed by more specific questions.

Will the candidate identify strategic industries where America is dangerously dependent?

Will the candidate support domestic production of medicine, chips, steel, energy equipment, defense materials, and critical infrastructure components?

Will the candidate confront China’s control of supply chains?

Will the candidate support affordable energy for manufacturing?

Will the candidate speed permitting for critical production and infrastructure?

Will the candidate support vocational and technical education?

Will the candidate oppose trade arrangements that sacrifice strategic industries?

Will the candidate prevent reshoring policy from becoming corporate welfare?

Will the candidate understand that national security includes industrial capacity?

A candidate who cannot answer these questions does not fully understand America First.

Conclusion

Reshoring strategic manufacturing is not nostalgia. It is not a fantasy of returning to the past. It is not an argument that America should make every product used by every household.

It is a recognition of reality.

A sovereign country must be able to make essential things.

It must be able to defend itself.

It must be able to heal its people.

It must be able to power its homes and factories.

It must be able to repair its grid.

It must be able to feed itself.

It must be able to equip its military.

It must be able to withstand shocks, shortages, coercion, war, and disaster.

That requires production.

MAGA places strategic manufacturing near the center of its governing philosophy because a country that cannot produce what it needs cannot guarantee its own independence.

Cheap goods are not enough.

Stock prices are not enough.

Global supply chains are not enough.

Friendly speeches from foreign governments are not enough.

America must be able to stand on its own feet.

That does not mean standing alone.

It means never being helpless.

A serious nation makes what it cannot afford to be denied.

https://theteapartypundit.substack.com/p/reshoring-strategic-manufacturing

July 17, 2026

The Covenant Above the Tribe

by Steve Dana

Human beings are tribal by nature.

Read Steve’s work on Substack http://www.theteapartypundit.substack.com

That is not an insult. It is an observation. We are born into families, neighborhoods, languages, customs, churches, histories, and loyalties that we did not invent. Long before we learn political theory, we learn who “our people” are. We learn who is safe. We learn who is suspect. We learn who shares our values, our stories, our habits, and our assumptions about the world.

Tribal instinct is not always evil. It can produce loyalty, courage, sacrifice, duty, and love. A man who will not defend his family is not morally superior because he has risen above tribe. He is morally deficient because he has failed the first test of loyalty. The same is true of neighborhoods, churches, communities, and nations. Human beings need belonging.

But the same instinct that binds people together can also turn poisonous. The line between “I love my people” and “your people are in my way” is not as thick as civilized people like to imagine.

That is the problem America has always tried to solve.

Our country was not founded on the fantasy that human beings would stop forming factions. The Founders understood human nature better than most modern political operators do. They knew that individuals and groups would seek advantage. They knew that people would organize around interest, passion, resentment, wealth, religion, region, and identity. They knew that majorities could become oppressive and minorities could become desperate. They knew that power, once acquired, is rarely surrendered gracefully.

That is why America was built not merely as a democracy, but as a constitutional republic. Majority rule matters, but majority rule alone is not justice. A majority can be wrong. A majority can be vengeful. A majority can violate the rights of the minority. A majority can turn government into an instrument of punishment. A majority can convince itself that because it has the votes, it also has moral permission to do whatever it wants.

The Founders knew better.

The purpose of the American covenant was to place something higher than tribe, faction, party, race, religion, class, and temporary political victory. That higher thing was the idea that all citizens stand under the same Constitution, possess rights that government did not create, and owe allegiance to a common civic order. The American bargain was not that every person would be the same. It was not that ancestry, culture, religion, and family history would disappear. The bargain was that those identities would be subordinated to citizenship.

That is a demanding idea.

It asks human beings to do something they do not naturally do. It asks them to restrain their own tribe when their tribe has power. It asks them to protect the rights of people they do not like. It asks them to honor the law even when the law benefits their opponent. It asks them to accept election results they did not want. It asks them to teach their children that liberty is not merely personal freedom, but ordered freedom under a shared moral and constitutional discipline.

That is America at its best.

But America at its worst is what happens when the covenant weakens and the tribes take over.

Political partisans understand this better than they admit. When they are in the majority, they speak the language of mandate, democracy, progress, justice, and the will of the people. When they are in the minority, they speak the language of rights, restraint, fairness, oppression, and abuse of power. The same people who celebrate majority power when it serves them often discover constitutional limits the moment power changes hands.

That is not unique to one party. It is not unique to American politics. It is human nature.

The group in power wants to use power. The group out of power wants to limit power. The majority says, “We won.” The minority says, “You are going too far.” When the tables turn, the speeches change, but the instinct remains.

This is why the struggle between majority and minority power must never be dismissed as merely academic. It is the living tension at the center of every government. In neighborhoods, gangs, legislatures, school boards, city councils, churches, nations, and civilizations, the side with power sets the terms. The side without power looks for ways to survive, resist, organize, and eventually replace the ruling coalition.

That is the nature of power.

The danger becomes greater in a multicultural society, because people do not organize only around policy. They organize around identity, memory, grievance, and fear. A group that cannot form a majority on its own may join with other groups that share little except a common opponent. These coalitions can be powerful. They can also be fragile, cynical, and dangerous.

A coalition built around shared principles can strengthen a republic.

A coalition built around shared resentment can destroy one.

This is where America’s modern challenge becomes so serious. We often talk as if our racial and cultural divisions are unique to us. They are not. Tribal conflict is one of the oldest facts of human history.

The world is full of examples. Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, and Indonesian peoples may all be called “Asian” from a distance, but they are not interchangeable peoples with one shared memory. Many carry histories of conquest, occupation, contempt, humiliation, and war. In the Middle East, Sunni and Shiite Muslims have fought for centuries over faith, legitimacy, power, and blood. In Europe, Protestants and Catholics killed each other in the name of God, nation, crown, and doctrine. Jews have been persecuted across civilizations by people who claimed moral and religious authority. In Africa, tribal and ethnic conflicts have often produced cruelty that outsiders barely understand. Around the world, majorities have used power against minorities, and minorities have dreamed of the day when power would shift.

America did not invent tribal conflict.

America’s claim was that it had found a way to rise above it.

Not perfectly. Not always. Not without hypocrisy. Not without sin. Not without slavery, discrimination, exclusion, injustice, and failure. But the claim still mattered. The American idea said there was a standard above tribe by which even America itself could be judged. That is why the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution remain so powerful. They did not merely describe what America already was. They declared what America was obligated to become.

That obligation is the covenant.

A covenant is more than a contract. A contract says, “I will do this if you do that.” A covenant says, “We are bound together by something higher than immediate advantage.” The American covenant says that we are not merely competing tribes living under one flag. We are citizens of one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Those words are easy to recite. They are hard to live.

They require the old majority to understand that historic dominance does not grant permanent ownership of the country. They require rising minorities to understand that past mistreatment does not justify future revenge. They require immigrants to understand that coming to America means more than gaining access to jobs, schools, benefits, safety, and opportunity. It means entering a civic inheritance that demands loyalty, gratitude, duty, and participation. They require native-born citizens to understand that citizenship is not automatic virtue. A person can be born here and still despise the covenant. A person can come from somewhere else and embrace it with reverence.

That last point matters.

This argument is not a defense of bloodline America. It is a defense of covenant America.

A Hispanic citizen who loves the Constitution is more American in spirit than a white citizen who hates it. A black pastor who teaches family, duty, faith, and ordered liberty is more faithful to the American covenant than a wealthy elite who funds contempt for the country while enjoying every benefit it provides. An immigrant who comes here determined to become an American is a blessing to the nation. A native-born citizen who teaches children that America is nothing more than oppression is a danger to the nation.

The dividing line cannot simply be race, ethnicity, birthplace, or ancestry.

The dividing line must be allegiance.

Do you believe in the American covenant or not?

That is the central question.

For much of our history, immigrants came to America with a clear understanding. They came from places where opportunity was limited, governments were corrupt, religious liberty was fragile, class barriers were hard, poverty was inherited, and political power belonged to someone else. America was not perfect, but it offered something rare: a chance.

The older immigrant bargain was simple: come here, work hard, become American, and your children can rise.

Those immigrants did not always abandon their food, language, churches, customs, or family traditions. Nor should they have been expected to. But the public expectation was clear. Heritage was permitted. Citizenship was primary. The hyphen might describe ancestry, but it was not supposed to outrank America.

Something changed.

Over the last several decades, the older language of assimilation weakened. The melting pot gave way to a different model, one that often placed ethnic identity, grievance, and ancestral recovery at the center of public life. America’s institutions became less confident in teaching newcomers why becoming American was an honor. At the same time, our schools, universities, media, and political movements increasingly taught native-born children to view their country not as a flawed but noble inheritance, but as a source of shame.

That has consequences.

The first-generation immigrant often compares America to the country he left. He remembers the corruption, poverty, fear, violence, limitation, or hopelessness. He is grateful. He works. He sacrifices. He tells his children that America gave the family a future.

The second-generation child may compare America not to the country his parents escaped, but to an abstract moral ideal presented in a classroom. He may be taught that America’s failures define it more than its achievements. He may inherit the fruits of assimilation while being taught to despise the tree that bore them.

That is a civic tragedy.

It is also politically useful.

A grateful citizen is hard to manipulate. A resentful identity group is easier to organize. Political operatives understand this. They know how to cultivate suspicion between groups. They know how to turn history into grievance and grievance into turnout. They know that several minority groups with little in common can be assembled into a majority if they can be persuaded to oppose the same enemy. They know that people who might not share values can still share resentment.

That is not nation-building.  That is faction-building.

And faction-building is not enough to sustain a republic.

A republic requires citizens who can say, “My group may benefit from this policy, but it is still wrong.” It requires citizens who can say, “My party has the votes, but the Constitution still restrains us.” It requires citizens who can say, “My ancestors suffered, but I am not entitled to punish my neighbors for sins they did not commit.” It requires citizens who can say, “My family came from another country, but my loyalty now belongs here.” It requires citizens who can say, “My country has failed, but I still love it enough to repair it rather than curse it.”

Love of country is not blindness.

Patriotism does not require pretending America has never done wrong. In fact, real patriotism requires the courage to tell the truth about national failures. But there is a difference between correction and contempt. There is a difference between loving your country enough to improve it and hating your country enough to dismantle it.

A child who is taught only America’s sins will not inherit America’s virtues.

A newcomer who is welcomed into benefits but not into the covenant will not necessarily become a citizen in the moral sense.

A political party that treats people as demographic inventory will not build national unity.

A majority that uses power for revenge will teach the next minority to seek revenge when its turn comes.

That is the cycle we must break.

The answer is not for one tribe to defeat all the others. That would merely prove the danger. If the old majority seeks only restoration of dominance, it has misunderstood America. If rising minorities seek only payback, they have also misunderstood America. If immigrants come only for material benefit without allegiance, they have misunderstood America. If native-born citizens inherit liberty without duty, they have misunderstood America.

America cannot survive as a spoils system among competing tribes.

It can only survive as a covenant people.

That means we must recover a language of citizenship that is firmer, clearer, and more honest than the language we use now. We should not be afraid to say that immigration requires assimilation. Not cultural erasure, but civic assimilation. We should not be afraid to say that English matters, common history matters, constitutional literacy matters, public order matters, borders matter, voting matters, military and civic service matter, and gratitude matters.

We should not be afraid to say that rights come with duties.

We should not be afraid to say that America is worth loving.

That may be the most radical statement left in public life: America is worth loving.

Not because she is flawless. She is not.

Not because every generation has lived up to her promises. It has not.

Not because every leader has been honorable. Many have not been.

America is worth loving because the covenant is worth preserving. A nation founded on the claim that rights come from God, that government exists by consent, that citizens are equal before the law, that speech and worship are free, that power must be limited, and that justice belongs to all is a nation with a moral architecture rare in human history.

If we lose that, we will not replace it with utopia.

We will replace it with tribes.

And tribes know what to do with power.

This brings us back to the practical lesson: the people who show up get to have their way.

A constitutional majority will not appear by magic. A civic majority must be formed, taught, organized, and mobilized. People who believe in the American covenant must stop assuming that their values will govern automatically because they are decent, quiet, hardworking, and normal. Quiet people are not in charge. Organized people are.

The future is being shaped in school board meetings, city council chambers, county offices, state legislatures, curriculum committees, party caucuses, churches, neighborhood groups, and primary elections. The people who attend those meetings, ask questions, run for seats, fund candidates, teach children, write arguments, and build institutions are the people who steer the country.

Absence is surrender.

If citizens who love America stay home, citizens who want to transform America will not pause out of courtesy. They will govern. They will write curriculum. They will staff agencies. They will nominate candidates. They will interpret laws. They will shape language. They will define justice. They will decide what children are taught to love and what they are taught to hate.

That is not a complaint. It is a reality.

In a republic, power goes to those who participate.

So the call is not merely to resentment. Resentment is easy. The call is to responsibility.

If we believe America is a covenant, we must teach the covenant.

If we believe citizenship matters, we must practice citizenship.

If we believe immigrants should become Americans, we must be confident enough to tell them what that means.

If we believe our children should love their country, we must give them reasons to love it.

If we believe power must be restrained, we must restrain our own side when our own side wins.

If we believe liberty and justice are for all, we must defend them even for people outside our tribe.

That is the hard patriotism America requires now.

The temptation of the age is to retreat into tribe. Every group can justify doing so. Every group has wounds. Every group has fears. Every group can tell stories of mistreatment. Every group can point to another group and say, “They would do it to us if they had the chance.”

Maybe they would.

That is precisely why the covenant matters.

The covenant is not needed because human beings are naturally fair. It is needed because we are not. It is not needed because majorities are always wise. It is needed because they are not. It is not needed because minorities are always noble. It is needed because they are human too. It is not needed because power corrupts only our enemies. It is needed because power tempts everyone.

America’s survival depends on whether enough of us still believe there is something higher than winning.

Higher than party.

Higher than race.

Higher than ancestry.

Higher than grievance.

Higher than revenge.

Higher than the temporary satisfaction of seeing our opponents humiliated.

That higher thing is the American covenant.

One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Not one tribe over another.

Not one faction above the law.

Not one coalition entitled to rule forever.

Not one grievance given permission to become tyranny.

One nation.

That is the promise.

That is the duty.

That is the inheritance.

And if we want to keep it, we had better start acting like citizens again.