Bob Gary Responds to The Observer Editorial of September 30, 2026

October 6, 2026

​

Matt Walsh is right about one thing in his recent column: Americans should think before they vote and do their research. I would ask Mr. Walsh to do the same.

 

His problem isn't that he believes in capitalism, but that he turns legitimate questions about government into ideological absolutes and seeks to divide us at a time when our democracy is under threat and we need to stand divide us at a time when our democracy is under threat and we need to stand together to preserve what we love about this country.

 

That is precisely why his argument demands a closer examination. I have given the assignment of responding to Mr. Walsh to ChatGPT.

 

I have done that not because I am incapable of writing a coherent response. After all, I did just recently write and publish a book. I am asking you to read a response not based on my personal opinion, but one written by a bot that has neither a soul nor emotion, but unemotionally tones down the rhetoric and brings us together, rather than further dividing us, at a time when decency, democracy, and the rule of law are under assault.

 

A time when our taxpayer dollars are being diverted to pay for ads to support one man, a time when we are being promised cash to influence an election, and a time when corrupt government officials are making billions.

 

You know where I am coming from.

 

What is the bloodless, computer-driven AI response to Mr. Walsh, a response not burdened by emotions and ideology? This AI response is what follows. You should read it not because it is right but because the contrast between the human voice and a machine demonstrates how our own opinions can be driven by bias. Some voices are more influential than others, particularly if they own the ink and the newsprint. Here it is.

 

Walsh makes legitimate points about government waste, healthcare fraud, inflation, federal spending, and the importance of markets. But repeatedly he takes a legitimate fact and leaps to an ideological conclusion the evidence does not establish.

 

On Medicare for All, there is a legitimate fiscal argument against single-payer healthcare. But federal spending is not the same as total national spending; government would assume costs now paid by employers, families, insurers and states. CBO has also found that some single-payer systems could reduce out-of-pocket costs, expand coverage, and lower administrative expenses. The issue deserves more than a one-sided cost estimate.

 

Walsh cites unauthorized ACA enrollments as proof that government healthcare fails. The fraud was real, but fraud demonstrates the need for oversight—not that government healthcare is inherently incapable of working. Likewise, PPP fraud cannot prove that Medicare or Medicaid cannot work. PPP was a business-relief program. Using fraud in one federal program to discredit another is guilt by association.

On inflation, Walsh is right that pandemic spending contributed. But supply bottlenecks, energy and commodity shocks, changes in demand and labor-market disruptions also mattered. 'Biden printed money' may be a political slogan, but it is not a complete economic explanation.

 

His comparison of America to Germany in the 1930s is even more troubling. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship that destroyed democratic institutions and political opposition. Americans can debate taxes, regulation and government spending without casually invoking Nazi Germany.

 

America has never been purely capitalist or socialist. We combine private enterprise with Social Security, Medicare, public education, infrastructure, research and regulation. Markets matter. Government matters. Entrepreneurship and public investment matter. The real question is where each works best.

 

Young Americans who say they favor 'socialism' may be reacting to healthcare costs, student debt, housing prices or economic insecurity. They are not necessarily advocating government ownership of every business.

 

We should listen rather than caricature.

 

Walsh is right that American capitalism has produced extraordinary innovation and prosperity. But much of that success has involved private entrepreneurs working with universities, government research, public investment and private capital.

 

Knowledge requires more than finding facts that confirm our ideology. It requires distinguishing fraud from inefficiency, federal spending from total national spending, correlation from causation, and democratic socialism from authoritarian dictatorship. Reasonable Americans can support free markets while valuing Medicare, favor lower taxes while supporting Social Security, and oppose excessive regulation while recognizing a legitimate role for government.

 

That is not ideological confusion. It is pragmatic democracy. At a time of extraordinary polarization, exaggerated claims that half our fellow citizens are socialists or that government regulation makes America comparable to Nazi Germany do not help us solve anything.

 

OK, that was a point-by-point rebuttal generated by a computer. 

 

We certainly don’t want a computer to be more concerned about bringing us together than one of our own. 

​

What it also shows is that a bullhorn alone does not advance the argument or assist in finding a solution. I would ask you to join in the debate because today’s America depends on mutual respect and informed dialogue.

​

America does not need less disagreement or debate. It needs better-informed and respectful disagreement and debate.

 

We need Republicans who can criticize government without treating every government program as socialism. We need Democrats who can defend social programs while acknowledging that government programs can waste money and need reform. We need conservatives who understand that capitalism depends on the rule of law, functioning institutions and public investment. We need liberals who understand that markets, competition and private enterprise are indispensable sources of prosperity. And all of us need to recognize that our political opponents are fellow Americans—not enemies of America.

 

The stakes are too high for ideological caricature. If Matt Walsh's challenge is that Americans should 'do your research,' then let us accept that challenge. But let us do the research honestly. Let's examine the evidence, acknowledge what we don't know, argue about policy rather than motives, and stop pretending that complicated problems have one-word answers.

 

That isn't liberalism. It isn't conservatism. It is simply what responsible citizenship requires. Let's not allow machines to be more responsible than we are. This is a time for unity, not division. The stakes have never been higher.

 

We can rearrange the deck chairs once we are no longer in jeopardy of losing our freedom. There are only a few days until the midterms in those remaining days can we please recognize we all face a genuine threat to our liberty and the freedoms we cherish and have taken for granted for too long.

 

Robert Gary