Categories
national politics & policies representation

Senators, Old & New

term limits, Congress, Senate, House of Representatives

The make-up of the next U.S. Senate is taking shape. New committee chairs, for instance. While Senate Democrats do not have a rigid seniority system for choosing committee chairs, seniority is one factor considered and, realistically, the longer a congressman is on a committee the more likely he or she is to ascend to a position of leadership.

Plus, the Democrats don’t have term limits for committee chairs.

Which leads to an average age, so far, of not-quite-Seventy!

Well, that’s what ChatGPT projects. “Using January 3, 2027 — the scheduled opening day of the 120th Congress — as the common reference date, the 18-person working roster of projected Democratic committee and select-committee chairs has an average age of 69.8 years.” 

And boy, does the AI present a revealing chart, a few senators just popping out:

  • Patty Murray (Washington) for Appropriations, 76
  • Ron Wyden (Oregon) for Finance, 77
  • Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) for Banking, Housing, and Urban (not Indian) Affairs, 77

The youngest on the chair list is 53; the oldest — Bernie Sanders! — is 88.

Now these positions aren’t set in stone. They are in the process of development. These are merely projected names, the most likely names based on august Washington tradition — and the long list of oldsters still in power. 

But, in contrast, we do know for certain the average age of the eight Democratic U.S. Senators who won critical races in Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. It’s 50 years old. 

Nearly two decades younger than the average age of those running the committees.

Seniority may be a good way to run a gerontocracy.

Term limits are a good way to change it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

Marquis d’Argenson

Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé […]. Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l’abaissement de nos voisins! Il n’y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du cœur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l’intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!!

Leave be, which should be the motto of all public power, since the world was civilized […]. A detestable principle is that of wanting to be enlarged by the lowering of our neighbors! There is only malice and malignity of heart in it, the principle being directly opposed to the general interest. Leave us alone, gadzooks! Leave us be!!

René Louis de Voyer de Paulmy, Marqis d’Argenson, Memoir es et Journal inidit du Marquis d’Argenson (1736 diary entry; first published 1858), echoing the words of M. Le Gendre, who, when asked, in 1681, by the eager mercantilist Controller-General of Finances Jean-Baptiste Colbert how the French state could be help promote commerce, Le Gendre replied simply: “Laissez-nous faire.” In a Journal économique article in 1751, d’Argenson put the Le Gendre anecdote into print first. “Laissez faire” became a rallying cry after that, and a major feature of liberalism until its transformation by its encounter with socialism. One often sees the phrase “laissez-faire capitalism” used to distinguish free markets from protectionism and dirigisme. René-Louis de Voyer de Paulmy, Marquis d’ Argenson.

NOTE: “Gadzooks” is a clever rendering of “morbleu,” which is an oath, not a word with literal meaning. The word morbleu is a 17th–18th century French expletive, a minced oath — a deliberately mangled version of a blasphemous phrase to soften it. It derives from “mort de Dieu” (“death of God,” or “God’s death”), with “bleu” substituted for “Dieu” the way English speakers said “zounds” instead of “God’s wounds” or “gadzooks” instead of “God’s hooks.” Other, period-appropriate English equivalents of the French oath are the clipped Shakespearean-era oaths, the aforementioned “Zounds” along with “Sblood” (for God’s blood) and “Egad” (for “O, God”).

Categories
Today

Cry of Independence

On November 10, 1821, the First Cry of Independence in the small, interior town of Villa de los Santos, occurred in Panama. The November 10 date has since become Panama’s “Cry of Independence Day” in the country.

Categories
ideological culture public opinion too much government

Socialism vs. Socialism vs. Socialism

State Socialism, collectivism, obedience

“Together we will defeat communism, socialism and Marxism in America,” said President Trump in a mid-term election spot. “America will never be a communist country.”

But what does he mean by those words? 

Vice President J. D. Vance was asked to define socialism at a press conference soon after the ad ran. 

The word, he said, is “a very hard term to define these days because . . . you know, classically, you would think, socialism is about prioritizing workers. And yet, in reality, I bet most of the self-described socialists running across America are going to howl about this announcement, today, which is prioritizing American workers over foreign workers, so, I don’t know what the term means any more. 

“I think in reality, what it actually means in the American context, is that you want to replace American workers with foreign workers, and you want boys to play in girls’ sports. That’s what I see that unites the socialists that I see running across the United States of America today.”

Vance focused on the woke nonsense (the boys in girls’ sports reference) because that is what he sees. By pointing to socialists’ opposition to administration policy against Microsoft replacing American workers with foreign ones, Vance was aiming to note an irony. 

Most folks, however — including from National Review and the Orange County Register — see a bigger irony in his defense of Trumpian policy by recourse to workers’ socialism.

It’s just protectionism, of course, but instead of frankly favoring home-grown businesses, it’s framed to favor American over foreign workers.

Yet, many economists insist that protectionism is just socialism in short pants.

“You can’t defeat socialism with an alternative form of collectivism,” explains Agustina Vergara Cid of the Register, “only with its opposite: the principle that the individual is not a means to any group’s end.” 

That’s unfortunately not how Trump or Vance approach the issue . . . but that may be of limited relevance, considering that their failures led to a backlash sending actual communists into Congress.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

Francis Amasa Walker

Protectionism is nothing if not socialistic. It proposes, in the public interest, to modify the natural course of trade and production, and to do this by depriving the citizen of his privilege of buying in the cheapest market. Yet the protectionist is not to be called, therefore, a Socialist, since the Socialist would not only have the state determine what shall be produced, but he would have the state itself undertake the production.

Francis Amasa Walker (Davis R. Dewey, ed.), Discussions of Economics and Statistics, Volume II (1899), p. 260.

Categories
Today

McNamara

On November 9, 1960, Robert McNamara was named president of the Ford Motor Company, becoming the first non-Ford family member to serve in that post — only to resign a month later to join the newly elected John F. Kennedy administration.

Categories
Update

Effrontery in Alaska

Alaska Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola must be granted extra points — for effrontery. After her campaign’s plot to engage in spreading confusion among the Alaskan electorate on the Republican spaces on the ballot was uncovered, you might think she’d slink her way into obscurity.

But that’s the old way, maybe. Not the new way.

Paul Jacob has covered that story, of scheming and anti-democratic trickery. The latest update is that her backers are suing the “state Division of Elections to disclose, ‘without further delay,’ the names of Alaskans who sent absentee ballots the agency turned down, according to a complaint filed on Nov. 6 in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska.

Accusing state elections officials of having “constructively denied and obstructed” the Peltola campaign’s request for public records pertaining to rejected ballots, the group said in the filing that the Nov. 18 certification deadline is fast approaching and any delay in releasing the records costs Peltola the opportunity to help ensure that qualified voters have their ballots counted.”

Tom Ozimek, “Peltola Campaign Sues Alaska Over Rejected Absentee Ballots,” The Epoch Times (November 7, 2026).

After such indecent trickery as engaged by the campaign in the Dan J./Dan S. Sullivan matter, this all may be a form of effrontery. Nevertheless, it remains true that the State must conduct its elections in an open and fair manner, obeying the letter of the law.

That being accepted, the State of Alaska has made a public statement about the lawsuit — which could, indeed, force an outcome on an extremely close race: “the Alaska Department of Law said the absentee ballot information Peltola’s campaign seeks is preliminary and that the Division of Elections has long treated such data as confidential.”

A lot of eyes will be on this case as well as the race itself.

Categories
Thought

William Graham Sumner

The history of civil liberty is made up of campaigns against abuses of taxation. Protectionism is the great modern abuse of taxation; the abuse of taxation which is adapted to a republican form of government. Protectionism is now corrupting our political institutions just as slavery used to do.

William Graham Sumner, “Protectionism: the -ism which teaches that waste makes wealth” (1888).
Categories
Today

JFK Won

Montana was admitted into the United States federal union as the 41st state on November 8, 1889. On the same date in 1960, John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon in one of the closest presidential elections of the 20th century, becoming the 35th president of the United States.

Categories
Update

Midterm Election Results, November 2026

On Tuesday, the midterm elections gave Democrats next-session control of both chambers of Congress, capturing the House and Senate in a classic repudiation of the president’s party:

Senate — Democrats appear to hold a majority of 54–44, with two races still undecided:

  • Mississippi: Democrat Scott Colom leads incumbent Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith by roughly 1,700 votes (~96% counted). A recount is anticipated given the margin; county clerks have ten days to certify.
  • Alaska: Democrat Mary Peltola leads incumbent Republican Dan S. Sullivan by roughly 600–650 votes, with tens of thousands of ballots outstanding. Because it is a four-way ranked-choice contest, tabulation may not conclude until after Nov. 18. If Peltola prevails, the Senate would be 55–45.

Either outcome leaves Democrats firmly in control.

House — Democrats have flipped more than two dozen Republican-held seats and are projected to reach approximately 258–259 seats (to roughly 177 for Republicans), up from 214 before the election — a net gain in the neighborhood of 40+ seats. Approximately 30 races remained uncalled as of Friday, concentrated in California, Alaska, Maine, Montana, and Florida.

Governorships — Democrats flipped governorships in Georgia, Iowa, Ohio, and Texas, and now hold more governorships than Republicans for the first time since before 2010.

What Comes Next
  • Recount and litigation watch in Mississippi and Alaska; parties on both sides have established recount funds.
  • An Alaska legal dispute over a second candidate named Dan Sullivan on the ballot (Dan J., last updated here on Halloween) could extend past the count itself.
  • Democratic majorities arrive with subpoena and oversight power, setting up an active investigative agenda against the administration through 2028.
Historical Context

Since 1982, only 1994 (−54) and 2010 (−63) produced larger House losses for the president’s party — and only twice (1998 and 2002) has the president’s party gained House seats at all.

Sources