RUY TEIXEIRA: Democrats Don’t Have a Growth Program;  they’re not even interested.

Democrats once understood the importance of economic growth. That’s because growth, particularly productivity growth, is what drives rising living standards over time. Democrats sought to harness the benefits of growth for the working class, not to interfere with the economic engine of progress. They believed in the future and the possibilities for dramatic improvement in human welfare.

Democrats’ 21st century project has, at its core, been dedicated to other goals. They now prize goals like fighting climate change, reducing inequality, pursuing procedural justice, and advocating for immigrants and identity groups above promoting growth. For example, the “Deciding to Win” report analyzed word frequency in Democratic Party platforms since 2012 and found a 32 percent decline in the appearance of the word “growth” compared to a 150 percent increase in the word “climate,” a 1,044 percent increase in “LGBT/LGBTQI+,” a 766 percent increase in “equity,” an 828 percent increase in “white/black/Latino/Latina,” and a 333 percent increase in “environmental justice.”

This is remarkably short-sighted. The key to substantially rising living standards for the working class—once the Democrats’ prized goal—is precisely more economic growth, especially higher productivity growth. You cannot make up for that by redistribution nor by simply spending more money on government programs. A fast-growth economy provides more opportunities for upward mobility, generates better-paying jobs, creates fiscal space for priorities like infrastructure projects, and, as Benjamin Friedman has argued, has positive “moral consequences” by orienting citizens toward generosity, tolerance, and collective advance. Slow growth has the opposite effects.

I’m glad to see that Teixeira has noticed, but this isn’t all that new a development: Welcome Back My Friends, to the Malaise that Never Ends.

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT:

ROBERT SPENCER: Joy Reid Doesn’t Much Like the U.S., but She Has IMMENSE Respect for One Far-Off Country. “Why doesn’t failed MSNBC host Joy Reid leave the U.S., as so many haters of President Donald Trump and his America-First policies have vowed to do? On Monday, she expressed her paranoid, fantasy-driven, and hysterical hatred and contempt for the United States during the second Trump administration, and compared the U.S. unfavorably to the Islamic Republic of Iran. So why not move to Tehran, Joy? It’s likely that real estate there is quite inexpensive these days.”

UNEXPECTED ENDORSEMENT:

“NOT JUST A PEOPLE OF DEATH, BUT A CULT OF DEATH:”

YEP:

HOLLYWOOD R.I.P.: A eulogy for the Dream Machine.

Hollywood’s last signs of life came earlier this year, with the masterly first half of Ryan Coogler’s Sinners. Not satisfied with its stunning depiction of the rural African American South, the film turned itself into a routine vampire flick, driving a stake through the heart of the ailing movie business. The Wicked franchise’s spell proved unable to revive the patient. One Battle After Another, intended like the recent Killers of the Flower Moon as an auteurist booster shot, showed merely that a once-great director could fashion a bloated, cringeworthy wokeist epic.

When seen through the rearview mirror, there’s something grotesquely ironic—and maybe appropriate—about how Hollywood embraced specifically anti-Jewish politics in this era. In September 2025, a petition circulated by Film Workers for Palestine garnered 5,000 signatures from directors, actors, and studio employees. The petition called for a boycott of Israeli artists and companies, essentially a new blacklist which, like the old one, targeted Jews. The Jews were the citadels of Hollywood’s old priorities; once it couldn’t live up to those anymore, the best way to burn it all down was to betray the very people who built it in the first place.

The seductive power of classic Hollywood can still be experienced, if you can find a theater that shows 35 mm or 70 mm prints. The colors still gleam, the black-and-white shadows still beckon, and the faces of the deities called stars still loom in the darkness. The monumental directors, actors, and filmworkers, nearly all of them now dead, will shine forever. It was the pictures that got small.

We think that just because a creative industry was around for our entire lives, it will be around forever. But Renaissance painting was once a creative industry—it had artists and assistants and patrons and audiences, a whole functioning creative economy. It doesn’t exist anymore. We still have the paintings, just as we’ll still have Citizen Kane and Vertigo and Goodfellas, but the life-world that made them—and that could ever make anything else like them again—is gone.

As someone who truly loves movies, it feels genuinely sad to see an industry DEI such a painful death:

If this isn’t the death knell, it means that a very different industry is emerging: Forget Tilly Norwood … Here Comes A.I. Val Kilmer.

Director Coerte Voorhees, with the approval of several members of Kilmer’s family, will use generative A.I. to insert the star’s likeness and voice. His character, a Native American spiritualist, will be seen at various stages of his life.

That’s no problem for A.I., which can use the endless array of images and video of the star  to capture him at various ages.

This won’t be a glorified cameo, like the late Peter Cushing appearing in “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.” The role is considered a significant part of the film, a project co-starring Wes Studi, Tom Felton and Abigail Lawrie.

Speculation over this kind of digital stunt casting isn’t new. Modern stars must wonder how their likenesses might be used in projects after their passing.

That reality is here, but will it actually grace theaters? Could an uprising over the digital casting force the film’s creators to reconsider?

Back in the 1980s, Arthur C. Clarke predicted 21st century digital recreations of the stars of Hollywood’s golden age such as Bogie and John Wayne. But how will audiences react to an AI recreation of a man who passed away quite recently?

THAT’S BEEN THE HOPE FROM THE BEGINNING…:

“My hope is that the Iranians themselves can take a hand and lessen the trauma.”

…but hope is not a plan.

HMM: California plots return of 7.5 million acres of land and coastal waters to Indigenous tribes.

This part looks good: “The new Tribal Stewardship Policy lets tribes reclaim land, co-manage public spaces and return to sacred sites. It also revives long-banned practices like controlled burns, a technique experts say is critical for stopping wildfires.”

The tribes used to take much better care of California’s forests than anyone in Sacramento has allowed in a long time.

YOU CAN BARELY KEEP TRACK OF THE PLAYERS EVEN WITH A SCORECARD:

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEFING: Perhaps the ‘Squad’ Progs Peaked Too Early. “In most discussions about the potential 2028 field for the Democratic presidential nomination, AOC is mentioned prominently. Even though she’s not at the top of most polls, there are many people on the left who think she’ll finish strong. The Democrats, however, are very good at mobilizing their power structure against candidates they would prefer not to win. If the money people and the old guard are trying to keep the prog kids in their places, the path to the nomination could get very bumpy for America’s Dumbest Bartender.”

OUR INTEL COMMUNITY HAS ISSUES:

Exit quote: “There’s no telling how close we’ve come to having our country taken from us by Duginite alt-right identity Marxist authoritarians who’d insinuated themselves into positions of power.”

And do read the whole thing.

ONE DAY YOU’RE WALKING WITH COMRADE STALIN, THE NEXT DAY YOU’RE AIRBRUSHED OUT OF EXISTENCE.

WELL, GOOD: China’s Air Displays Fail to Deter Emerging Taiwan–Japan Alignment.

Meanwhile, it must be noted that Japan is stepping up as a regional ally to both the U.S. and Taiwan.

A senior Japanese lawmaker visiting Taipei recently defended Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s earlier comments that a Chinese blockade of Taiwan could be a situation “threatening Japan’s survival,” which, under Japan’s security laws, could justify military action in support of a partner.

He criticized China’s foreign minister for “distorting” Takaichi’s remarks and described Beijing’s response (e.g., diplomatic protests, economic pressure, and public criticism) as China’s “usual tactics.”

Intriguingly, Taiwan’s Premier made a personal trip to Japan and appeared in public to watch the island’s baseball team in action. This was the first such visit from the Taiwan leadership since 1972.

Despite renewed Chinese air activity and maritime maneuvers around Taiwan, both Taipei and Tokyo appear unmoved by Beijing’s displays.

Those two together could make a regional powerhouse.