Columns

Eileen Higgins won a historic victory in December. She became the first woman ever elected mayor of Miami, as well as its first Democratic mayor since 1997.

(THE CONVERSATION) — Eileen Higgins won a historic victory in December. She became the first woman ever elected mayor of Miami, as well as its first Democratic mayor since 1997.

Although the stakes in the city’s Dec. 9, 2025, runoff election were high, interest was not - 4 in 5 registered voters stayed home.

Low turnout is common in municipal elections across the country. While much of the nation’s political attention stays focused on Washington, the leaders who control the nation’s streets, schools and neighborhoods are typically chosen by a small fraction of citizens.

Although many Americans can identify their U.S. senators or members of Congress, far fewer can name even one of their local elected officials, such as a city council member. To cite one example, a North Carolina study, found that 86% of state residents could not identify their own elected leaders, including local government officials.

Turnout in local elections regularly falls below 20%, often leaving critical decisions in the hands of small, unrepresentative groups, creating an electorate that’s disproportionately white, elderly and affluent.

My research as a political scientist suggests an overlooked factor explains why some people engage with their communities while others tune out: local patriotism, or how they feel about their town.

—————

The power of local patriotism

For my book “Patriotism and Citizenship,” I commissioned a nationally representative survey of 500 Americans. We asked a simple question: How do you feel about the town you live in? Those who responded could choose from five options, ranging from “hate it” to “love it.”

About half said they “liked” their town, 20% loved it, but a full quarter expressed no positive feelings whatsoever; 3% said they outright “hated” where they lived.

Such attitudes have real-world effects. Even after accounting for factors such as age, education, income and general interest in politics, loving one’s town strongly predicted participation in local politics.

People who loved their town were more likely to attend city council meetings, contact local officials, volunteer for campaigns and discuss local issues with friends. The same pattern held for civic participation – from volunteering with community groups to organizing neighborhood cleanups.

Local patriotism also correlated strongly with trust in local government.

—————

Determining the stakes

To test whether these feelings actually change civic behavior, I ran two experiments.

Participants were first asked to identify the biggest problem facing their town. Some mentioned traffic congestion, others cited crime or homelessness. Then came the test: Would they donate $1 they’d earned for taking the survey to help solve that problem?

In the first experiment, one group was asked “Thinking about feelings of love or hate toward your town, would you like to donate this $1 to help your town solve the problem that you just listed above?” The other group received no such prompt about their feelings and was just asked to donate to solve the problem.

The results were striking. Among those primed to consider their feelings about their town, 18% gave away their payment. In the control group, just 3% donated – a sixfold difference.

A second experiment replicated this finding. When people were prompted to think about loving their town, 8% donated. Even asking them to consider feelings of hate led 5% to give. But in the control group with no emotional prompt? No one donated.

—————

Why this matters for democracy

Local patriotism appears to address a fundamental puzzle in political science: why anyone participates in local politics at all. The time and effort required almost always exceed any tangible benefit an individual would receive.

But when people care deeply about their community, the calculation changes. The emotional reward of helping a place you love becomes a plus. The sacrifice feels worthwhile not because it will definitely make a difference, but because you’re investing in something that matters to you.

This has important implications. The positive feelings people have toward their community translate directly into civic engagement, without the risk of increasing negative feelings such as jingoism or xenophobia.

For local leaders frustrated by low turnout and apathy, the message is clear: Before asking residents to show up, give them reasons to care. Build pride of place, and engagement will follow.

The good news is that local attachment isn’t fixed. My experiments showed that simply prompting people to think about their feelings toward their town could motivate civic action.

—————

A few ways to foster local patriotism

Here are some strategies that can help foster local patriotism:

• Create civic rituals: Regular community events, from farmers markets to fireworks, build emotional ties to place.

• Celebrate iconic places: Whether it’s a waterfall, clock tower or mountain view, promote the landmarks that symbolize your community. These shared images give residents a common point of pride and visual shorthand for what makes their town special.

• Bring children to community events and have them participate in local organizations: Parents who take their kids to town festivals, parades and events, or sign them up for youth art and sports programs, aren’t just keeping them entertained. They’re building the next generation’s emotional connection to place and creating civic habits that can last a lifetime.

The evidence shows that emotional connection to community is a powerful but largely untapped resource for strengthening democracy from the ground up.

In an era of declining civic engagement and deepening partisan divisions, fostering local patriotism might be exactly what the country needs.

“Taco night” for many across the United States consists of an Americanized idea of Mexican food: ground beef cooked with a packaged seasoning mix, taco shells, lettuce, tomato and sour cream.

“Taco night” for many across the United States consists of an Americanized idea of Mexican food: ground beef cooked with a packaged seasoning mix, taco shells, lettuce, tomato and sour cream.

Let’s just say that if you’re reading this and have enjoyed a similar meal, you will be blown out of the water by this authentic version from my cookbook “Plantas: Modern Vegan Recipes for Traditional Mexican Cooking. “ These tacos were a favorite of mine as a kid. I remember watching my Tía Chela making them, and they felt like such a treat. The secret here is using salsa to season your meat, rather than dried herbs and spices. It creates much juicier, deeper flavor.

Tacos Dorados de Picadillo/Crispy
 “Beef” Tacos
Makes 12 tacos

Ingredients

FILLING:

2 tablespoons neutral oil, such as avocado oil

½ medium white onion, diced small

3 garlic cloves, minced

2 large carrots, peeled and diced small

2 Yukon Gold potatoes, peeled and diced small

½ cup low-sodium vegetable broth

1 (12-ounce) package plant-based ground meat (such as Impossible or Beyond Meat)

¼ teaspoon sea salt

SALSA:

1 tablespoon neutral oil, such as avocado oil

2 ripe Roma tomatoes

¼ medium white onion

1 serrano or jalapeño pepper, stemmed and seeded

2 garlic cloves, peeled

¼ cup low-sodium vegetable broth

¼ bunch cilantro

¼ teaspoon sea salt

TACOS:

12 corn tortillas, store-bought or homemade

6 to 8 tablespoons neutral high-heat oil, such as avocado oil

Guacasalsa (guacamole mixed with salsa verde), for serving

Directions

1. To make the filling, heat the oil in a large sauté pan over medium-low heat. Add the onion and sauté for 2 minutes, then add the garlic, carrots, and potatoes and sauté for 4 minutes. Turn the heat down to low and add the broth. Cover and steam for 10 to 12 minutes, until the vegetables are fork-tender. Add the ground meat and cook, using a spatula to break up any large clumps, for 7 to 10 minutes, until browned. Season with the salt.

2. Meanwhile, make the salsa. Heat the oil in a large skillet or sauté pan over medium heat. Add the whole tomatoes, onion quarter, serrano or jalapeño pepper, and garlic cloves and cook for 2 to 4 minutes on each side, until blackened and charred (the garlic might char more quickly, after 2 to 3 minutes total). Transfer the contents of the pan to a blender. Add the broth, cilantro, and salt and blend on high until smooth.

3. Add the salsa to the meat and vegetable mixture and stir to combine. Cook for 10 to 12 minutes. Taste and add more salt to your liking.

4. To make the tacos, heat a medium skillet or comal over high heat. Add a tortilla and cook for 30 to 40 seconds on each side, then transfer to a tortilla holder or wrap in a kitchen towel. Repeat to heat the remaining tortillas.

5. Add 2 tablespoons of the picadillo mixture to one half of each tortilla and fold to close. They should stay closed as you fry them, but feel free to use toothpicks if necessary.

6. Heat the oil in a large, deep sauté pan over medium heat. Working in batches, add a few tacos and fry for 2 minutes on each side, or until golden brown. Using a spatula, transfer the tacos to a paper towel–lined plate.

7. Serve with salsa and guacasalsa.

—————

Alexa Soto is a Mexican-American recipe creator, mental health advocate and the creator of the blog Fueled Naturally. She lives in San Diego with her husband Chancy, son Santino and their two dogs. Excerpted from PLANTAS by Alexa Soto. Copyright (copyright) 2024 by Alexa Soto.

Donald Trump has flagged Venezuelan drug trafficking as a key reason for the U.S. military operation on Jan. 3, 2026, that captured President Nicolás Maduro and whisked him to New York to face federal drug charges.

(THE CONVERSATION) — Donald Trump has flagged Venezuelan drug trafficking as a key reason for the U.S. military operation on Jan. 3, 2026, that captured President Nicolás Maduro and whisked him to New York to face federal drug charges.

Trump has described Maduro as “the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States.”

In 2025, the administration presented the U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean and repeated strikes on alleged drug trafficking vessels off Venezuela’s coast as necessary to counter the flow of cocaine into the United States.

But as an international relations scholar focused on Latin America, I know that when assessed against hard data on cocaine production and transit, the U.S. pretense for military action against Venezuela falters.

Venezuela has never been a major cocaine producer. That distinction belongs overwhelmingly to Colombia, which accounts for the vast majority of coca cultivation and cocaine processing in the Western Hemisphere.

That means the arrest of Maduro and subsequent U.S. attempts to control Venezuela’s government are unlikely to stem the influx of cocaine into the U.S.

—————

Justifying intervention

While Venezuela’s geography and governance gaps make it a transit country for Colombian products, most U.S. cocaine originates and flows through corridors north and west of Venezuela. This contradicts the claim that Caracas was the central hub of cocaine trafficking into the United States.

Moreover, the opioid overdose crisis in the U.S. today is overwhelmingly driven by synthetic drugs such as fentanyl, which have supply chains rooted in Mexico and Asia, not Venezuela.

So why did Washington elevate Venezuela’s role in narcotics?

The answer, I believe, lies less in illicit markets than in power. By conflating criminal networks with government authority, an act amplified through legal designations and indictments, the Trump administration could justify military intervention without explicit congressional authorization.

Once Maduro was removed, the substance beneath the rhetoric became clearer. The U.S. has not turned power over to an opposition democratic coalition. Instead, it facilitated the swearing-in of Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as interim president, a figure deeply tied to the existing regime and whose network includes people long accused by U.S. authorities of illegal activities.

The release of political prisoners by the interim government and U.S. moves to reopen Venezuela’s oil sector to American interests underscore that what unfolded was not purely a counternarcotics mission but a reconfiguration of governance in Caracas.

—————

Pretext for military action

The role of the Cartel de los Soles – or Cartel of the Suns – in this narrative deserves particular scrutiny. Originally a label for alleged trafficking networks within Venezuela’s security forces, U.S. legal indictments and terrorist designations expanded that concept. That amplified the narrative that Maduro was at the head of a transnational criminal enterprise.

In fact, the Cartel de los Soles is not a structured cartel at all. Yet the narrative of Maduro as head of a narco-terrorist empire was politically and legally potent. It provided a pretext for military action, creating a justification that could be sold domestically and internationally as an effort to defend U.S. citizens from an external criminal threat.

But the U.S. attack in Venezuela was not, in substance, a counternarcotics mission. It was a strategic economic and geopolitical operation framed in the language of law enforcement.

Two days after the Venezuela attack, the Justice Department retreated from its November 2025 claim that Maduro was the head of Cartel de los Soles, underscoring that the link between drug enforcement and regime removal was more instrumental than evidentiary.

Rodríguez said just days after the U.S. attack, “Drug trafficking and human rights were the excuse; the real motive was oil.”

—————

No meaningful reduction

While the U.S. operation in Venezuela undoubtedly disrupted the trafficking networks that operated under Maduro’s umbrella, at least temporarily, the action cannot be convincingly framed as a drug supply intervention.

The reality of drug trafficking itself underscores this point.

Cocaine production and distribution networks are dynamic. When one route is disrupted, traffickers invariably find alternative pathways.

Routes that once used Venezuelan territory have likely rerouted rather than collapsed. This has historically characterized drug flow in Latin America in response to pressure from law enforcement.

Even if Venezuelan transit networks are briefly destabilized, there is no evidence that U.S. intervention will lead to a meaningful reduction in the volume of illegal drugs flowing into the United States. The most significant drivers of U.S. drug problems, including Mexico-based distribution systems and the surge of synthetic opioids, operate largely outside Venezuela.

The U.S. operation may benefit Venezuela politically by toppling a long-standing authoritarian figure. That opens the possibility of political change.

But if the lens through which policymakers view these events is drug policy, they are misreading both the evidence and the incentives. The action was centered on energy and strategic realignment, with counternarcotics rhetoric serving as a justification rather than a driver of the U.S. attack.

And while trafficking networks adapt and survive, these shifts will not reduce the flow of drugs into the United States, which has long been shaped by factors far beyond Venezuela’s borders.

Butzel President and CEO Paul M. Mersino has been appointed to the Board of Trustees for Troy-based Walsh College.

Butzel Long

Butzel President and CEO Paul M. Mersino has been appointed to the Board of Trustees for Troy-based Walsh College.

Mersino was recently named to Crain’s Detroit Business’ new “Who’s Who – The Most Influential People in Southeast Michigan.” He also was named to Crain’s Detroit Business magazine’s 2021 Class of “40 Under 40” list.

Mersino was named to DBusiness magazine’s Detroit 500 – 2025 list of the Most Powerful Business Leaders in Metro Detroit, for the third straight year.

He has been recognized as a Top Lawyer by DBusiness magazine, as a Michigan Super Lawyer, as one of Oakland County’s Elite 40 under 40, and as an “Up and Coming Lawyer” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.

Mersino was appointed Butzel president and CEO in March 2023. He is responsible for the operations and management of the 150+ attorney firm, including budgeting, setting strategic goals, and more. Mersino was elected to the firm’s Board of Directors in 2020. 

He represents public and private companies, in a number of areas including complex commercial litigation, contract disputes, non-compete and trade secret disputes, automotive supplier disputes, construction litigation, and First Amendment litigation. Mersino has seen a number of successes in trials and cases across the country, having obtained jury verdicts, summary judgment rulings, dismissal of cases against his clients, and settlements favorable to his clients in state and federal courts throughout the nation. 

Mersino also represents and advises a number of startup companies, assisting them with their legal needs and matching them with potential venture capital funding. He handles appeals in the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court, and in federal courts across the country. 

Mersino formerly served as Butzel’s Litigation Practice Department chair. He was responsible for the management and oversight of the firm’s Commercial Litigation attorneys who reported to him as well as their strategic goals, budgeting, forecasting, and direction of the practice group. Mersino also has served as trustee of the Butzel Charitable Trust. 

He has served on the Board of Directors of the Detroit Bar Association and as an advisor to the Michigan Institute of Continuing Legal Education’s Litigation Advisory Board.

Mersino is a 2008 graduate of Ave Maria School of Law. He earned an undergraduate degree in Business Administration from Northwood University (B.A., 2005).

—————

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright is pleased to announce the election of two new member attorneys in the firm’s Detroit and Troy offices, effective January 1.

Kaitlyn Elias is a member in the firm’s Troy office. She focuses her practice on commercial litigation and real estate matters.  She regularly assists developers with permitting utility-scale renewable energy projects, landlords with evictions, lease terminations and negotiations, and lenders with foreclosures, receiverships, and other litigation matters.  

Elias is a member of the Oakland County Bar Association and is also a certified mediator. She is recognized as a leader in her field by Michigan Super Lawyers “Rising Stars,” Best Lawyers in America “Ones to Watch,” and DBusiness Top Lawyers. 

Elias received her B.A. from Western Michigan University and her law degree from the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University.

Rebecca Papi is a member in the firm’s Detroit office. Her practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, private equity transactions, general corporate matters, and corporate formation and governance. She also advises on commercial banking and finance transactions, including representing lenders and borrowers in secured and unsecured financings, acquisition financings, and complex credit facilities. She has been recognized as a leader in her field by Michigan Super Lawyers as a “Rising Star.” 

Papi received her B.S.from Central Michigan University and her law degree from Michigan State University College of Law.

—————

Clark Hill PLC

Clark Hill recently announced that longtime Executive Committee member and  litigation practice leader Linda Watson has moved into the newly created chief growth officer position, effective January 1. Watson is specifically tasked with charting a strategic path for sustainable revenue and profitability growth, attraction and retention of outstanding professional talent, and advisement for technological enhancements.

“Operationally, this really is a collaborative role that touches on every aspect of the firm. I look forward to using my institutional knowledge of Clark Hill, and the skill sets I’ve developed as a leader and strategic advisor, to make a material impact on the future of the firm as the CGO.” Watson said.

The chief growth officer position has grown in popularity at law firms as the competitive market changes. The convergence of industry consolidation, increased sophistication of in-house legal departments, and the rise of alternative legal service providers motivated Clark Hill to identify a leader to work hand-in-glove with the firm’s chief executive officer, John Hensien, to identify potential revenue channels, create operational efficiencies and strengthen talent retention and training practices.

Watson, who joined Clark Hill in 2007, previously co-led the firm’s Litigation Business Unit. She will continue to lead the firm’s Automotive and Manufacturing industry group. Watson also served multiple terms on the firm’s Executive Committee.

As a practicing litigator, Watson has been named a “Top” and “Notable” lawyer by leading Michigan area publications for multiple years. She attended Stanford University’s Innovation and Entrepreneurship Certificate Program sponsored by the School of Engineering and she is a graduate of the Northwestern University Leading Diversity Equity and Inclusion Certification Program, earning her certification to lead DEI in 2020.

In addition, Watson is a graduate of the National Trial Institute for Trial Advocacy. Watson earned her undergraduate degree at Oakland University and her law degree at Michigan State University College of Law.

—————

Maddin, Hauser, Roth, & Heller PC

Shareholder Ron Sollish has been elected president and chief executive officer of Maddin Hauser effective January 1. A longstanding executive committee member and part of the firm’s leadership team since 2014, Sollish most recently served as the firm’s vice president. He was elected vice president in December 2019, officially assuming the role in 2020.

As president, Sollish will oversee the firm’s strategic direction, operations, and long-term growth, while upholding the firm’s commitment to client service and professional excellence. 

Sollish takes over from Steven D. Sallen, who was president and CEO for 15 years after succeeding Michael Maddin in 2010. Sallen was elected president in December 2009 and successfully led the firm through some of its most challenging years, including economic downturns and the COVID-19 pandemic. Under his leadership, Maddin Hauser enhanced its reputation as a premier, mid-sized law firm, enjoyed significant growth in number of attorneys, practice areas, and revenues, and, after almost forty years in the same location, recently relocated to its new modern offices at One Towne Square in Southfield.

Sollish chairs the firm’s Corporate and Business and Employment and Workforce Management groups. His practice specializes in employment, real estate, partnership, finance, corporate, and business law. He has led the Employment Law Symposium and Breakfast Bites®: Employment Law Series for many years, drawing business owners and human resources professionals from across the region.

“I am deeply honored to lead Maddin Hauser,” said Sollish. “We are incredibly fortunate to have such a talented group of attorneys and professional staff. Steve was an outstanding president, CEO, and leader. I look forward to building on our firm’s strong foundation, growing meaningfully, and continuing to deliver outstanding results for our clients.”

Michigan Lawyers Weekly has twice named Sollish a Go To Lawyer for Employment Law and inducted him into its Hall of Fame in 2022.

Maddin Hauser is also pleased to announce that Tanya E.J. Lundberg has been elevated to chief administrative officer. Lundberg joined the firm in 2022 as the associate office administrator.  She assumed her new role on January 1.

Lundberg manages human resources, benefits, payroll, new employee onboarding, information technology, finance and accounting, and facilities management. With an eye toward the firm’s growth, she has also expanded the firm’s recruiting efforts and continually enhances professional development opportunities. Alongside Steve Sallen and Ron Sollish, Lundberg led the firm’s office move in 2024. 

Passionate about giving back to the Detroit legal community, Lundberg serves on the board of directors of the Women Lawyers Association of Michigan and is a past president of the Women’s Bar Association.

Lundberg joined Maddin Hauser from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, where she was the assistant dean of Career Services and Outreach. She graduated from Wayne State University School of Law in 2007 and earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Michigan-Dearborn in 2003.

In addition, Maddin Hauser is pleased to announce that Michael J. Hamblin, Carly R. Kolo, and Mariel G. Newhouse have been elevated to shareholders.  The three became shareholders effective January 1.

Hamblin is a litigator in the firm’s complex litigation and risk advisory group, with a background in handling commercial and real estate disputes, as well as other contested matters. His practice is comprised of business litigation, non-compete agreement matters, partnership/shareholder disputes, minority shareholder oppression cases, Michigan sales commission disputes, breach of contract litigation, real estate disputes, and trusts and estates litigation. Hamblin has appeared in state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He earned his law degree at Wayne State University Law School.

A member of the firm’s estate planning and probate group, Kolo guides individuals and families through the sensitive yet critical conversations involved in preparing and implementing comprehensive estate plans, as well as the complexities of administering estates and trusts. Her clients range from high-net-worth individuals and those with more modest estates to business owners and blended families, as well as couples just starting their life journeys together and those approaching their golden years. Kolo earned her law degree from Michigan State University College of Law.

As part of the firm’s employment and workforce management practice group, Newhouse focuses her practice on helping employers prevent and resolve costly and disruptive employment law claims. She works with employers and their management and human resources professionals to develop and implement compliant hiring and employment policies and training programs, draft employee handbooks, prepare employment agreements, and respond to administrative actions and investigations, including matters before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state-level equivalents. Newhouse earned her law degree from Michigan State University College of Law.

—————

Zausmer, P.C.

Detroit Mayor Mary Sheffield recently appointed more than 50 civic and business leaders to 18 policy committees called Rise Higher Detroit. 

Among the appointees, Zausmer Shareholder Cinnamon Plonka was appointed to co-chair the Law & Civil Rights Committee. This committee is tasked with advising the mayor on legal matters impacting the city, evaluating the city’s civil rights and inclusion infrastructure, and developing best practices to ensure all city policies align with federal, state, and local law.

A lifelong Detroiter, Plonka attended school in the city and bought her first home there. She says that partnering with Sheffield in this way is an opportunity to take Detroit to an even greater level. “Mayor Sheffield has a special gift for connecting with the community and a clear focus on making sure Detroiters have real access to justice.”

The Law & Civil Rights Committee will address emerging legal issues that directly affect residents, including immigration enforcement, the legal implications of a National Guard presence, housing rights, and public safety. “Part of our work is bringing to life legal protections that already exist but may not be widely understood,” says Plonka. “We want every Detroiter to know how the law can serve them.”

The Rise Higher initiative is built on the idea that meaningful progress comes from shared responsibility. Plonka notes that her committee will advise, educate, and participate in shaping policy and informing public understanding. They will be present in meetings, at events, and in the city government. “We’re here to support this vision for as long as the mayor needs us.”

—————

Kitch Attorneys & Counselors

Kitch Attorneys & Counselors is proud to recognize the dedication and talent of its attorneys by announcing the following promotions:

—Principals
Justin Rostker, Detroit
Paul Wilk, Detroit 

—Senior Associates
Jennifer Barie, Mt. Clemens
Claire Hockradel, Detroit
Brenden McKee, Mt. Clemens
Westley Taylor, Mt. Clemens
Samantha Torongeau, Mt. Clemens

—————

Harness IP

Detroit-based Harness IP Principal Bob Siminski has been nominated to serve as vice chair of both the Asian Practice Committee and the Wellness Committee of the International Patent Owners Association (IPO) for the 2026 term.

Siminski advises clients on intellectual property strategy with a focus on helping businesses protect, manage, and commercialize their innovations in both domestic and international markets. His practice involves counseling companies navigating cross-border IP considerations, portfolio development, and risk management—particularly as businesses expand into Asia and other global markets.

In addition, Detroit-based Harness IP associate April Minarik has been recognized as an INTA Rising Star.

Minarik focuses her practice on trademark and brand protection matters, advising clients on trademark prosecution, portfolio management, and enforcement strategies. Her work supports businesses across a range of industries as they develop, protect, and maintain their brands in the United States and internationally.
As part of this recognition, Minarik has been invited to engage with INTA leadership and fellow Rising Stars and will be honored at the Rising Star Reception during the 2026 INTA Annual Meeting in London.

The Minnesota Somali day care scam ought to outrage people on both the left and the right.

The Minnesota Somali day care scam ought to outrage people on both the left and the right. Seeing money intended to help poor parents allegedly taken by bad actors is a reminder that we have much to do to improve government efficiency.
But there is a lot to be gained from fixing public spending decisions. While partisan debates focus on how much the government will spend on a program, what often matters more is how that money gets spent.

People on the right want lower taxes and therefore are skeptical of government spending. People on the left want more government services, and so they are doubtful about tax cuts.

This debate is important. We should argue whether to spend more or less. But we should also recognize that we can do the policies better.

Take welfare programs. Federal and state programs offer a patchwork of services designed to help poor people. Do they provide relief? Do they help people out of poverty? How can governments provide needed assistance and get recipients on a path to prosperity and independence? The debate between whether there should be more or less assistance sidesteps the question of whether the programs accomplish their tasks.

When Republicans passed a budget without extra medical insurance subsidies for people well above the poverty level, few people asked whether these subsidies gave the best bang for the buck in helping people who needed help. It was a question of more or less.

When Democrats pitch their plan to add a new assistance program to cover the cost of poor people’s water bills, few even notice that we already have programs that do this. The new plan isn’t introduced to fill the gaps around that program, if they exist. It is to add a new program.

There is a better way to approach welfare policies. If the system to assist poor people is so broken that low-income households cannot afford to pay their water bills, it’s an indictment of the entire social assistance system. We have policies that are supposed to alleviate the burdens of poverty and ensure that poor households get the basics, like running water. If the system of support fails to perform that function, then another program with its own rules, benefits and eligibility guidelines isn’t going to fix the problem.

Or it could be that the problem was exaggerated in the first place. The idea that people might not be able to afford to pay for water is scary. It spurs our compassion. Politicians can score points by proposing another program, regardless of whether there’s a need or whether existing solutions have been effective.

Instead of focusing on the question of whether to spend more or less on the task, policymakers should focus on whether the money already allocated can be better spent or the program better administered. People are both denied benefits when eligible and granted benefits when ineligible. That’s not supposed to happen.

Indeed, the Minnesota day care scam would never have worked with better administration. If there had been a process to ensure that eligible beneficiaries actually received services, then there wouldn’t have been payments for day care services that weren’t being provided.

People hold powerful sentiments that encourage the debate about more or less. That the economy is oppressive and therefore people need robust assistance programs resonates with a lot of people. So does the idea that people are going to take advantage of government programs. Thinking of how to do the job better gets neglected because it doesn’t stoke those sentiments.

That’s unfortunate because there is a lot of ground to be shared by coming together to answer questions about what is working as intended and what is not. People can hear from the public servants administering the programs about the results. They can experiment and measure different ways of providing assistance.

We’ve become so stuck on the question of more or less that few people even notice when new programs are duplicative. Or whether they’re working the way they’re supposed to. Yet we’d spend less and accomplish more if people cared more about better. That ought to be something both sides can agree upon.

—————

James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

In the aftermath of the U.S. military strike that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, 2026, the Trump administration has emphasized its desire for unfettered access to Venezuela’s oil more than conventional foreign policy objectives, such as combating drug trafficking or bolstering democracy and regional stability.

(THE CONVERSATION) — In the aftermath of the U.S. military strike that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, 2026, the Trump administration has emphasized its desire for unfettered access to Venezuela’s oil more than conventional foreign policy objectives, such as combating drug trafficking or bolstering democracy and regional stability.

During his first news conference after the operation, President Donald Trump claimed oil companies would play an important role and that the oil revenue would help fund any further intervention in Venezuela.

Soon after, “Fox & Friends” hosts asked Trump about this prediction.

“We have the greatest oil companies in the world,” Trump replied, “the biggest, the greatest, and we’re gonna be very much involved in it.”

As a historian of U.S.-Latin American relations, I’m not surprised that oil or any other commodity is playing a role in U.S. policy toward the region. What has taken me aback, though, is the Trump administration’s openness about how much oil is driving its policies toward Venezuela.

As I’ve detailed in my 2026 book, “Caribbean Blood Pacts: Guatemala and the Cold War Struggle for Freedom,” U.S. military intervention in Latin America has largely been covert. And when the U.S. orchestrated the coup that ousted Guatemala’s democratically elected president in 1954, the U.S. covered up the role that economic considerations played in that operation.

—————

A powerful ‘octopus’

By the early 1950s, Guatemala had become a top source for the bananas Americans consumed, as it remains today.

The United Fruit Company owned over 550,000 acres of Guatemalan land, largely thanks to its deals with previous dictatorships. These holdings required the intense labor of impoverished farmworkers who were often forced from their traditional lands. Their pay was rarely stable, and they faced periodic layoffs and wage cuts.

Based in Boston, the international corporation networked with dictators and local officials in Central America, many Caribbean islands and parts of South America to acquire immense estates for railroads and banana plantations.

The locals called it the “pulpo” – octopus in Spanish – because the company seemingly had a hand in shaping the region’s politics, economies and everyday life. The Colombian government brutally crushed a 1928 strike by United Fruit workers, killing hundreds of people.

That bloody chapter in Colombian history provided a factual basis for a subplot in “One Hundred Years of Solitude,” an epic novel by Gabriel García Márquez, who won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1982.

The company’s seemingly unlimited clout in the countries where it operated gave rise to the stereotype of Central American nations as “banana republics.”

—————

Guatemala’s democratic revolution

In Guatemala, a country historically marked by extreme inequality, a broad coalition formed in 1944 to overthrow its repressive dictatorship in a popular uprising. Inspired by the anti-fascist ideals of World War II, the coalition sought to make the nation more democratic and its economy more fair.

After decades of repression, the nation’s new leaders offered many Guatemalans their first taste of democracy. Under Juan José Arévalo, who was democratically elected and held office from 1945-1951, the government established new government benefits and a labor code that made it legal to form and join unions and established eight-hour workdays.

He was succeeded in 1951 by Jacobo Árbenz, another democratically elected president.

Under Árbenz, Guatemala implemented a land reform program in 1952 that gave landless farmworkers their own undeveloped plots. Guatemala’s government asserted that these policies would build a more equitable society for Guatemala’s impoverished, Indigenous majority.

United Fruit denounced Guatemala’s reforms as the result of a global conspiracy. It alleged that most of Guatemala’s unions were controlled by Mexican and Soviet communists and painted the land reform as a ploy to destroy capitalism.

—————

Lobbying Congress to intervene

In Guatemala, United Fruit sought to enlist the U.S. government in its fight against the elected government’s policies. While its executives did complain that Guatemala’s reforms hurt its financial investments and labor costs, they also cast any interference in its operations as part of a broader communist plot.

It did this through an advertising campaign in the U.S. and by taking advantage of the anti-communist paranoia that prevailed at the time.

United Fruit executives began to meet with officials in the Truman administration as early as 1945. Despite the support of sympathetic ambassadors, the U.S. government apparently wouldn’t intervene directly in Guatemala’s affairs.

The company turned to Congress.

It hired the lobbyists Thomas Corcoran and Robert La Follette Jr., a former senator, for their political connections.

Right away, Corcoran and La Follette lobbied Republicans and Democrats in both chambers against Guatemala’s policies – not as threats to United Fruit’s business interests but as part of a communist plot to destroy capitalism and the United States.

The banana company’s efforts bore fruit in February 1949, when multiple members of Congress denounced Guatemala’s labor reforms as communist.

Sen. Claude Pepper called the labor code “obviously intentionally discriminatory against this American company” and “a machine gun aimed at the head of this American company.”

Two days later, Rep. John McCormack echoed that statement, using the exact same words to denounce the reforms.

Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Sen. Lister Hill and Rep. Mike Mansfield also went on the record, reciting the talking points outlined in United Fruit memos.

No lawmaker said a word about bananas.

—————

Lobbying and propaganda campaigns

This lobbying and communist talk culminated five years later, when the U.S. government engineered a coup that ousted Árbenz in a covert operation.

That operation began in 1953, when the Eisenhower administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to unleash a psychological warfare campaign that manipulated Guatemala’s own military to overthrow its democratically elected government.

CIA agents bribed members of Guatemala’s military. Anti-communist radio broadcasts and religious pronouncements about communist designs to destroy the nation’s Catholic church spread throughout the country.

Meanwhile, the U.S. armed anti-government organizations inside Guatemala and in neighboring countries to further undermine the Árbenz government’s morale.

And United Fruit enlisted public relations pioneer Edward Bernays to spread propaganda, not in Guatemala but in the United States. Bernays provided U.S. journalists with reports and texts that portrayed the Central American nation as a Soviet puppet.

These materials, including a film titled “Why the Kremlin Hates Bananas,” circulated thanks to sympathetic media outlets and members of Congress.

—————

Destroying the revolution

Ultimately, the record shows, the CIA’s efforts prompted military officers to depose their elected leaders and install a more pro-U.S. regime led by Carlos Castillo Armas.

Guatemalans who opposed the reforms slaughtered labor leaders, politicians and others who had supported Árbenz and Arévalo. At least four dozen people died in the immediate aftermath, according to official reports. Local accounts recognized hundreds more deaths.

Military regimes ruled Guatemala for decades after this coup.

One dictator after another brutally repressed their opponents and fostered a climate of fear. Those conditions contributed to waves of emigration, including countless refugees, as well as some members of transnational gangs.

—————

Blowback for bananas

To shore up its claims that what happened in Guatemala had nothing to do with bananas, exactly as the company’s propaganda insisted, the Eisenhower administration authorized an antitrust suit against United Fruit that had been temporarily halted during the operation so as not to cast further attention on the company.

This would be the first in a series of setbacks that would break up United Fruit by the mid-1980s. After a series of mergers, acquisitions and spinoffs, the only constant would be the ubiquitous Miss Chiquita logo stuck to the bananas the company sells.

And, according to many foreign policy experts, Guatemala has never recovered from the destruction of its democratic experiment due to corporate pressure.