A Pyrrhic victory is a win that comes at such a high cost to the winner that it is basically the same as defeat. The term comes from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose victories over the Romans at Heraclea (280 BCE) and Asculum (279 BCE) left him badly weakened.
We Won, Here Comes the Affordability (or the Trump inquisition)
How sad that across America so many voters have apparently been bamboozled by Democrats’ promises about “affordability.”
How exactly will an agenda that depends on astronomical government spending, higher taxes, and ever-increasing government control magically make everything more affordable? And how is restricting domestic oil and gas production supposed to bring down energy prices? (Hint: Making energy harder to produce isn’t exactly a recipe for lower prices!)
Do people really believe that the government can simply spend and redistribute its way to prosperity? Where does all that money come from, anyway?
And now, after winning back Congress, some Democrats are saying “Lawyer up!” Subpoenas! Investigations! And perhaps a THIRD impeachment!
Of course, congressional oversight is legitimate. But wasn’t this election supposedly about “affordability”? How much time and energy will be devoted to “getting Trump” rather than addressing the problems voters want solved?
Speaking of Corruption
Speaking of “corruption,” the Democrats’ selective outrage is remarkable. Remember Democratic Senator Bob Menendez? Convicted of accepting bribes, including cash and GOLD BARS, in exchange for political favors and sentenced to 11 years in prison. Oops!
Or Michael Madigan, the powerful Democratic Illinois House Speaker convicted of bribery and corruption and sentenced to 7½ years in federal prison.
And then there’s good ol’ Joe Biden, who repeatedly said he wouldn’t pardon his son Hunter—then he did, granting him an extraordinarily broad pardon after his federal gun conviction and guilty plea on tax charges.
Corruption certainly isn’t confined to Democrats. But their politicians should be a little more careful about portraying themselves as the nation’s great defenders of political integrity. Glass houses?
It’s the Economy, Stupid
Remember the economy under Biden? Inflation reached 9.1% in June 2022! Yes, substantial government spending contributed to rising inflation, alongside pandemic-related supply disruptions and energy shocks.
But now we’re dealing with the Iran conflict, which has disrupted oil markets and driven up energy prices. This was no “war of choice” but a necessary preemptive effort to prevent a very dangerous regime from developing nuclear weapons—a central objective of the Trump administration’s military operation.
It’s true that gas prices are high now, and inflation has risen. But annual inflation was 3.7% in September 2026, still well below its June 2022 peak under Biden, and gasoline prices remain below the record levels reached under Biden. So, let’s not pretend the Biden years were some golden age of low prices and inflation!
And isn’t it interesting that we heard plenty about pandemic disruptions when explaining inflation under Biden—and those disruptions were real. Yet Trump is now being excoriated for the economic consequences of confronting Iran. Whatever one thinks about the decision, shouldn’t the critical national-security considerations behind it receive serious attention alongside the economic costs?
In fact, Trump himself has now acknowledged that the Iran war contributed to the Republicans’ crushing midterm defeat. Yet he defended his decision, maintaining that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons was worth the cost and that he would make the same decision again.
Think about that for a moment. Trump pursued a military operation that he knew carried enormous political risks, and those risks have now materialized. Nevertheless, he maintains that the action was necessary for American and global security. Would today’s Democrats have been willing to make such a politically costly decision in the interest of national security? Doubtful.
You may disagree with Trump’s judgment or question whether the operation was necessary or its objectives achieved. But the president’s responsibility is not simply to make decisions that win elections. It is to act according to what he believes will best protect the nation—even when doing so comes at a substantial political price.
And now we come to the new Democratic socialists’ solution. Yep—MORE government spending! MORE redistribution! MORE government intervention! Just keep giving Washington more money and power, and somehow everything will become magically “affordable”!
Meanwhile, Trump has pursued tariffs, domestic manufacturing, expanded energy production, and stricter border enforcement. Those policies have costs and tradeoffs worth debating. But apparently some voters decided that their feelings about Trump’s personality mattered more than seriously comparing the alternative Democratic policies.
Should ICE be put “on ice”?
What about actually enforcing our immigration laws? Trump dramatically reduced illegal border crossings and has pursued the deportation of people here illegally, including serious criminals. How “fascist!”
Yes, ICE officers should be held accountable for misconduct, just like any law enforcement officers. But since when did enforcing immigration laws become inherently illegitimate? And wouldn’t greater cooperation between Democratic officials and ICE potentially make immigration enforcement less confrontational and safer for everyone involved?
If you listen to some activists, you’d think deportation itself was immoral! Does government not have the legitimate responsibility to control its borders and protect its citizens? Or should we just give the red-carpet treatment to violent criminals, potential terrorists, and sex and drug traffickers?
But the bigger problem underlying all this is the growing temptation to make GOVERNMENT some kind of savior. We are promised economic security, equality, affordable everything, and protection from every conceivable hardship, provided we hand politicians enough money and power to make it happen. Sound familiar?
Socialism and Communism—Still Crazy After All These Years
Socialism and communism are not identical, but they belong to the same ideological family. In Marxist theory, socialism was understood as a stage toward communism. Both challenge the capitalist system and place enormous importance on collective control of economic resources.
The historical record of authoritarian communist governments is utterly HORRIFIC.
Under Stalin, forced collectivization, confiscation of agricultural property, and political repression contributed to catastrophic famine and the deaths of millions. Those who resisted could be imprisoned, deported, or killed.
Under Mao, the supposedly glorious Great Leap Forward turned into one of the deadliest man-made famines in human history, with estimates of approximately 30 MILLION deaths.
And under Fidel Castro, the Cuban people were promised liberation and a more equal society. Instead, they endured one-party dictatorship, political imprisonment, censorship, and decades of restrictions on their freedoms.
Of course, today’s democratic socialists insist they reject authoritarian communism. Well, that doesn’t erase the historical relationship between socialist and communist ideas, or the dangers of concentrating enormous economic and political power in government.
Look at what the Democratic Socialists of America actually proposes: public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries, aggressive wealth taxes, abolishing the Senate and Electoral College, and replacing the presidency and Supreme Court with institutions subordinate to Congress.
This is what they want for America, a nation whose constitutional traditions emphasize limited government, individual liberty, private enterprise, and checks and balances. Democratic Socialists want to discard fundamental features of what has made the American experiment successful, replacing them with sweeping government control and economic policies that have produced some of history’s most spectacular failures.
Do you, as an American, really want to move our nation in this direction because you’re unhappy with Trump’s personality or frustrated by high prices and inflation? Have you seriously considered the potential consequences of the socialist policies Democrats are asking you to support?
The fundamental lesson of these historical disasters should be obvious: Giving government enormous power to promise equality, prosperity, and security does not guarantee any of those things. It can instead produce economic catastrophe, repression, and the destruction of freedom itself.
No, that doesn’t mean every socialist is another Stalin or Castro. But history gives us plenty of reasons to be VERY suspicious of grand promises that require handing more and more power to the state.
And it is extremely foolish to dismiss those dangers simply because you dislike Trump or naively believe Democrats will somehow make everything affordable.
I sincerely hope the next two years will still bring us more prosperity, liberty, and genuine accountability. But given the direction of the increasingly influential socialist and radical-progressive wing of the Democratic Party, I have serious concerns about where all this is heading.
I think we can look forward to endless political warfare and more government-knows-best economic experiments.
Congratulations on your pyrrhic victory, America.
Originally published on X, November 4, 2026.
