Ike, love your writing and appreciate your perspective. In the debate with David Muir, President Biden acknowledged at least 12 million illegal entries during his tenure. Why do you think he allowed that? To put that number in perspective according to NPS.GOV, the US admitted 12 million people legally through Ellis Island over 62 years. I don't agree with Vance but I can't explain why the federal govt would abandon such a foundational and critical role. Go Bulldogs.
Rich, so great to hear from you - GO BULLDOGS! And thanks for supporting the newsletter!
To your question, I don't have a better answer for you (for "all of us," frankly, as this is a compound security issue that negatively impacts ALL Americans, domestically and geo-strategically) ... other than the following offerings:
1. I think we all discount the complexities, complications, wickedness, and compoundedness of the whole Immigration puzzle (legal, illegal, and elicit), to include how challenging even a straightforward policy agenda aimed at "well and faithfully executing the laws" as they currently stand on the books. 12 million "illegal entries" over the course of four years during the Biden Admin was, actually and sadly, a "drop" in the numbers. In short, I think we all simply discount just how damn hard it is to implement our laws and processes ... which probably is good reason enough to rationally and reasonably reconsider those laws and bureaucratic processes.
2. Making no excuses for any one, or any particular Administration, I think the Biden Administration simply fell short, if not failed outright, to take on this major compound national/transnational security dilemma as top-priority. We have had 40-60 years of Administration after Administration failing to make this a top-issue for effective actioning. By the time the Biden-Harris Administration DID begin to take real effective action, it was (a) too little, too late, for not long enough, and (b) so close to the election that those actions became perceived as poluted with electoral politics motivations.
3. To your comparative point with Ellis Island entries only being around 12 million persons over a 62 year period, this raises the whole "change in the character, and the nature" of the policy arena .... with Immigration Policy no longer being "only" a traditional "domestic" (and therefore largely considered "benign," and resourced as such) when it has transformed and metastasized into a "compound security threat" .... Immigration SECURITY Policy. This "new species of the thing" simply demands wholly different "cocktails" of policy treatments to solve. This is the academic research work I have been working on for the past 30+ years. Here's a link to a survey article on the theory:https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol50/iss2/3/
Let's keep the conversation going ... and let me know if you'd be okay with sharing this dialogue thread as a Note for other subscribers to see and comment on.
You know one of the things I loved studying at the Academy was the macro level international relations. There was one major issue that I have with most of the theories and that is the fact they depend on a more uniform definition of rationality. Unfortunately, rationality isn't uniform but rather learned/developed over the course of life experiences. States are ran by individuals whose experiences differ greatly from that of others.
I see this article and while in a sense it supports my general thoughts on Vice President Vance, I cannot help but ask why. What has shaped his life to showcase these things are the cause of our decline? How much of this is shaped externally versus how much of it is his own?
The lessons post WWII with extreme right and left seemed to focus on brining the world back to middle ground, but the last 20 or so years they pendulum has been gaining dramatic speed to where we are today. My concern is that in 2028 we will see another over correction causing us to divide more. Yes, I acknowledge that is a significant leap forward given we're a month into current administration, but we cannot be short sighted in this. Failure to have a long term grand strategy to achieve peace within the US and the world will keep us fire fighting.
I appreciate this comment—both for the depth of thought you’re bringing and the fundamental challenge you pose to how we understand political behavior, rationality, and the forces shaping figures like Vance.
You’re absolutely right: rationality is not uniform—it’s shaped by lived experience, social conditioning, and the narratives individuals adopt over time. And when those individuals rise to power, their personal rationality becomes national (and in some cases, global) policy.
Your “why” is a critical question. What shaped Vance’s worldview? How much of his ideological trajectory is authentic belief versus political calculation? We can trace his evolution from an economic populist, wary of Trumpism, to a full-throated nationalist pushing rhetoric that often overlaps with white ethno-nationalist themes.
Some of that shift is external—reward structures in the modern GOP, the gravitational pull of the far right, the way political survival requires signaling allegiance to certain narratives.
But some of it is internal—a growing conviction that America’s decline stems from cultural dilution rather than structural economic shifts, from elites and outsiders rather than systemic policy failures.
Your point about the post-WWII consensus is another crucial one. For much of the Cold War, the dominant political forces—even when they disagreed—sought to keep governance near the middle. But in the last 40 years, the pendulum has swung wildly, driven largely by the far-right’s embrace of white ethno-nationalism, faux Great Replacement fears, and a revisionist historical narrative that rebrands racial grievance as patriotism.
And that leads to your most important concern: the potential for a so-called "overcorrection" ahead. If history is any guide, you’re not making too big of a leap.
If 2028 becomes another radical swing rather than a stabilizing moment, the fractures we see today will only deepen.
But here’s where I’ll push back—or at least, reframe the question. Do we really lack a long-term grand strategy for political and social cohesion? Or have we always had one, clearly laid out in our founding and framing documents—the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, 240 years of legal precedent—and we just no longer agree on it?
Maybe the real issue isn’t that we don’t have a blueprint for national unity—it’s that we the people no longer share a consensus on the value of that blueprint itself. If half the country now sees the Constitution as an inconvenient relic to be reinterpreted or discarded in service of raw power, then the problem isn’t a lack of guiding principles—it’s the loss of faith in them.
This, ultimately, is what keeps me up at night—not just where we are today, but what comes next.
Let’s keep this conversation going. This is exactly the kind of long-view thinking we need.
You mentioned a few things about Vice President Vance's experiences, but I would say one needs to go further back to the days when he was raised. In most people those experiences shape the individual to be predisposed to certain responses without them even knowing why. Being raised in a poor working class family that are self described "hillbillies" has a long lasting impact. Not to say that these the people in his family or others were/are bad people, but purely those viewpoints and experiences have shaped him.
You do bring a great counter argument on the blueprint and that we do not necessarily agree on the Constitution any longer. I'm not certain if it's a lack of agreement that the document provides us with that blueprint or if it is a lack of using it as a guiding principle. I liken it to the Cadet Honor Code (for those not aware the West Point Cadet Honor Code is "A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."). If a Cadet does not let Honor Code serve as their North star, they will stray from it. I think that is where we are today. We haven't used it as a guiding star. Sure there are modern interpretations that come with it, but for the most part the principles hold very true today. Substitute human for man and you have focus on human rights.
Ultimately, we need leadership that brings us back to the document with the understanding of the realities we face today. GOOD and WELL executed change doesn't happen in a 4 year term or even an 8 year term.
Yes, you make an important point—to fully understand Vance’s trajectory, we have to go all the way back to his roots, to the childhood experiences that shaped his worldview before he ever entered the political arena.
Growing up in an impoverished, working-class Appalachian family—where identity, resilience, and survival were often intertwined with deep skepticism of government and elite institutions—undoubtedly influenced his predispositions toward nationalism, cultural preservation, and an “us versus them” mentality.
I think you’re right that many of these views were formed long before he even knew why he held them, shaped by an environment that, for generations, has been defined by economic hardship, cultural alienation, and a deep-rooted sense of regional grievance.
Still, even giving him this much benefit of the doubt (and I hesitate to do so, even as a thought experiment), .... his “hillbilly elegy” is frankly not all that different than my own genesis story (being reared and raised in and under similar socioeconomic conditions, and geographically along the border fringes of “his” Appalachia) ... and additionally, how and why was that he ended up pursuing the lifestyle and credentials of the very “northeast power elite?”
His actions simply do not comport with his genesis story – I find it manufactured and ‘faux’.
And all that said, there's another still a whole other side to this conversation—one that acknowledges his origins but doesn’t excuse where he has arrived.
No matter where his ideology was born, Vance is no longer a struggling kid in Appalachia—he is the sitting Vice President of the United States, second only to Trump in shaping national policy.
His influence no longer stops at rhetoric; it manifests as legislation, executive action, and judicial appointments that will impact all of us for generations.
And here’s where I draw the line: whatever his personal journey, his current trajectory places him in alignment—whether intentionally or for political convenience—with a white ethno-nationalist vision of America. The uni-culture, “Western heritage” preservation ideology that he now promotes as a governing principle is in direct conflict with the foundational pluralism of the U.S. Constitution.
To your point about guiding principles, I think your Cadet Honor Code analogy is spot on. The Constitution was meant to be that North Star, that enduring framework that transcends political cycles.
The real crisis today isn’t just that we no longer agree on its principles—it’s that many in power, including Vance, are actively reshaping its interpretation to fit a narrow, exclusionary worldview.
At the end of the day, where his beliefs come from is an interesting and important question—but what he is doing with them now is the real issue. And because those beliefs, when translated into policy, threaten the very democratic foundations that have defined this nation for over two centuries, they must be checked—by the courts, by the public, and by those still willing to defend the Constitution as it was intended, not as a tool for cultural gatekeeping.
Leadership, as you said, should bring us back to that document—not weaponize it for ideological ends. And that’s the battle we’re in today.
Ike, love your writing and appreciate your perspective. In the debate with David Muir, President Biden acknowledged at least 12 million illegal entries during his tenure. Why do you think he allowed that? To put that number in perspective according to NPS.GOV, the US admitted 12 million people legally through Ellis Island over 62 years. I don't agree with Vance but I can't explain why the federal govt would abandon such a foundational and critical role. Go Bulldogs.
Rich, so great to hear from you - GO BULLDOGS! And thanks for supporting the newsletter!
To your question, I don't have a better answer for you (for "all of us," frankly, as this is a compound security issue that negatively impacts ALL Americans, domestically and geo-strategically) ... other than the following offerings:
1. I think we all discount the complexities, complications, wickedness, and compoundedness of the whole Immigration puzzle (legal, illegal, and elicit), to include how challenging even a straightforward policy agenda aimed at "well and faithfully executing the laws" as they currently stand on the books. 12 million "illegal entries" over the course of four years during the Biden Admin was, actually and sadly, a "drop" in the numbers. In short, I think we all simply discount just how damn hard it is to implement our laws and processes ... which probably is good reason enough to rationally and reasonably reconsider those laws and bureaucratic processes.
2. Making no excuses for any one, or any particular Administration, I think the Biden Administration simply fell short, if not failed outright, to take on this major compound national/transnational security dilemma as top-priority. We have had 40-60 years of Administration after Administration failing to make this a top-issue for effective actioning. By the time the Biden-Harris Administration DID begin to take real effective action, it was (a) too little, too late, for not long enough, and (b) so close to the election that those actions became perceived as poluted with electoral politics motivations.
3. To your comparative point with Ellis Island entries only being around 12 million persons over a 62 year period, this raises the whole "change in the character, and the nature" of the policy arena .... with Immigration Policy no longer being "only" a traditional "domestic" (and therefore largely considered "benign," and resourced as such) when it has transformed and metastasized into a "compound security threat" .... Immigration SECURITY Policy. This "new species of the thing" simply demands wholly different "cocktails" of policy treatments to solve. This is the academic research work I have been working on for the past 30+ years. Here's a link to a survey article on the theory:https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol50/iss2/3/
Let's keep the conversation going ... and let me know if you'd be okay with sharing this dialogue thread as a Note for other subscribers to see and comment on.
Thanks again, Richard!
Hi Ike thanks again sure let’s keep dialogue open.
You know one of the things I loved studying at the Academy was the macro level international relations. There was one major issue that I have with most of the theories and that is the fact they depend on a more uniform definition of rationality. Unfortunately, rationality isn't uniform but rather learned/developed over the course of life experiences. States are ran by individuals whose experiences differ greatly from that of others.
I see this article and while in a sense it supports my general thoughts on Vice President Vance, I cannot help but ask why. What has shaped his life to showcase these things are the cause of our decline? How much of this is shaped externally versus how much of it is his own?
The lessons post WWII with extreme right and left seemed to focus on brining the world back to middle ground, but the last 20 or so years they pendulum has been gaining dramatic speed to where we are today. My concern is that in 2028 we will see another over correction causing us to divide more. Yes, I acknowledge that is a significant leap forward given we're a month into current administration, but we cannot be short sighted in this. Failure to have a long term grand strategy to achieve peace within the US and the world will keep us fire fighting.
Joshua,
I appreciate this comment—both for the depth of thought you’re bringing and the fundamental challenge you pose to how we understand political behavior, rationality, and the forces shaping figures like Vance.
You’re absolutely right: rationality is not uniform—it’s shaped by lived experience, social conditioning, and the narratives individuals adopt over time. And when those individuals rise to power, their personal rationality becomes national (and in some cases, global) policy.
Your “why” is a critical question. What shaped Vance’s worldview? How much of his ideological trajectory is authentic belief versus political calculation? We can trace his evolution from an economic populist, wary of Trumpism, to a full-throated nationalist pushing rhetoric that often overlaps with white ethno-nationalist themes.
Some of that shift is external—reward structures in the modern GOP, the gravitational pull of the far right, the way political survival requires signaling allegiance to certain narratives.
But some of it is internal—a growing conviction that America’s decline stems from cultural dilution rather than structural economic shifts, from elites and outsiders rather than systemic policy failures.
Your point about the post-WWII consensus is another crucial one. For much of the Cold War, the dominant political forces—even when they disagreed—sought to keep governance near the middle. But in the last 40 years, the pendulum has swung wildly, driven largely by the far-right’s embrace of white ethno-nationalism, faux Great Replacement fears, and a revisionist historical narrative that rebrands racial grievance as patriotism.
And that leads to your most important concern: the potential for a so-called "overcorrection" ahead. If history is any guide, you’re not making too big of a leap.
If 2028 becomes another radical swing rather than a stabilizing moment, the fractures we see today will only deepen.
But here’s where I’ll push back—or at least, reframe the question. Do we really lack a long-term grand strategy for political and social cohesion? Or have we always had one, clearly laid out in our founding and framing documents—the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, 240 years of legal precedent—and we just no longer agree on it?
Maybe the real issue isn’t that we don’t have a blueprint for national unity—it’s that we the people no longer share a consensus on the value of that blueprint itself. If half the country now sees the Constitution as an inconvenient relic to be reinterpreted or discarded in service of raw power, then the problem isn’t a lack of guiding principles—it’s the loss of faith in them.
This, ultimately, is what keeps me up at night—not just where we are today, but what comes next.
Let’s keep this conversation going. This is exactly the kind of long-view thinking we need.
Sir,
You mentioned a few things about Vice President Vance's experiences, but I would say one needs to go further back to the days when he was raised. In most people those experiences shape the individual to be predisposed to certain responses without them even knowing why. Being raised in a poor working class family that are self described "hillbillies" has a long lasting impact. Not to say that these the people in his family or others were/are bad people, but purely those viewpoints and experiences have shaped him.
You do bring a great counter argument on the blueprint and that we do not necessarily agree on the Constitution any longer. I'm not certain if it's a lack of agreement that the document provides us with that blueprint or if it is a lack of using it as a guiding principle. I liken it to the Cadet Honor Code (for those not aware the West Point Cadet Honor Code is "A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do."). If a Cadet does not let Honor Code serve as their North star, they will stray from it. I think that is where we are today. We haven't used it as a guiding star. Sure there are modern interpretations that come with it, but for the most part the principles hold very true today. Substitute human for man and you have focus on human rights.
Ultimately, we need leadership that brings us back to the document with the understanding of the realities we face today. GOOD and WELL executed change doesn't happen in a 4 year term or even an 8 year term.
Josh,
Yes, you make an important point—to fully understand Vance’s trajectory, we have to go all the way back to his roots, to the childhood experiences that shaped his worldview before he ever entered the political arena.
Growing up in an impoverished, working-class Appalachian family—where identity, resilience, and survival were often intertwined with deep skepticism of government and elite institutions—undoubtedly influenced his predispositions toward nationalism, cultural preservation, and an “us versus them” mentality.
I think you’re right that many of these views were formed long before he even knew why he held them, shaped by an environment that, for generations, has been defined by economic hardship, cultural alienation, and a deep-rooted sense of regional grievance.
Still, even giving him this much benefit of the doubt (and I hesitate to do so, even as a thought experiment), .... his “hillbilly elegy” is frankly not all that different than my own genesis story (being reared and raised in and under similar socioeconomic conditions, and geographically along the border fringes of “his” Appalachia) ... and additionally, how and why was that he ended up pursuing the lifestyle and credentials of the very “northeast power elite?”
His actions simply do not comport with his genesis story – I find it manufactured and ‘faux’.
And all that said, there's another still a whole other side to this conversation—one that acknowledges his origins but doesn’t excuse where he has arrived.
No matter where his ideology was born, Vance is no longer a struggling kid in Appalachia—he is the sitting Vice President of the United States, second only to Trump in shaping national policy.
His influence no longer stops at rhetoric; it manifests as legislation, executive action, and judicial appointments that will impact all of us for generations.
And here’s where I draw the line: whatever his personal journey, his current trajectory places him in alignment—whether intentionally or for political convenience—with a white ethno-nationalist vision of America. The uni-culture, “Western heritage” preservation ideology that he now promotes as a governing principle is in direct conflict with the foundational pluralism of the U.S. Constitution.
To your point about guiding principles, I think your Cadet Honor Code analogy is spot on. The Constitution was meant to be that North Star, that enduring framework that transcends political cycles.
The real crisis today isn’t just that we no longer agree on its principles—it’s that many in power, including Vance, are actively reshaping its interpretation to fit a narrow, exclusionary worldview.
At the end of the day, where his beliefs come from is an interesting and important question—but what he is doing with them now is the real issue. And because those beliefs, when translated into policy, threaten the very democratic foundations that have defined this nation for over two centuries, they must be checked—by the courts, by the public, and by those still willing to defend the Constitution as it was intended, not as a tool for cultural gatekeeping.
Leadership, as you said, should bring us back to that document—not weaponize it for ideological ends. And that’s the battle we’re in today.