The Wells Brothers' Election Commentary 2026
by David R. Wells and Lawrence H. Wells
It is time for another in our series of election year commentaries.
2026 is a congressional election year rather than a presidential election year. We cannot offer detailed analysis on the elections for all 435 Congressional and 35 Senate seats, so we will only speak generally.
" … a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1.
What is at stake in the 2026 election is representative democracy in the United States.
We believe that the first 18 months of Donald Trump's second term as president clearly demonstrates that, having commenced as a demagogue, he desires to end as a tyrant.
What Donald Trump and his administration (regime?) are doing is un-American.
We'll discuss what we mean by "un-American" later in this article.
This election is our opportunity to elect a Congress that will use its power to check the Trump administration's abuses.
It's common to discuss our rights as citizens of the United States. We rarely discuss responsibilities as citizens of the United States. Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. We'll say more about rights and responsibilities later in this article. For the moment we'll focus on one:
As a U.S citizen, perhaps your most important responsibility is to sustain its representative democracy by participating in its elections.
The most basic way to participate is to vote. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with our views on candidates or issues; you should still vote.
Do not think that this is someone else's job. You are an essential part of our democracy. Your participation makes our democracy a little stronger; but it becomes a little weaker if you don't at least participate by voting. It's true that one person alone might only make a tiny difference, but the cumulative effects can be huge. If enough people don't vote, our democracy may become so weak that it crumbles.
This is exactly what the enemies of democracy, whether foreign or domestic, want.
If you're still not persuaded, consider it purely in terms of your own self interest. If you don't vote, in effect you're giving whatever political power you have to other people who do vote. They might be people you agree with, or they might be people you vehemently disagree with. Either way they will have more ability to influence government policies through their votes, and you will have none.
Donald Trump is not on the ballot this year, but that doesn't mean Congressional elections are unimportant. Congress has considerable power to affect what he can and cannot do.
We'll begin our discussion of the importance of Congressional elections by
stating a basic principle of the United States.
Its most fundamental governing principle can be summarized quite simply:
No branch of government, or government official, can ever be allowed to have too much power.
The entire structure of the Federal government with its "separation of powers" between the three different branches, reflects this principle. This is discussed in the Federalist Papers, particularly numbers 47 through 51.
Donald Trump has already attempted to usurp powers that belong to other parts of government, including Congress. (We'll say more on this below.) Trump's supporters in Congress have been all too willing to concede their powers to him.
We need a Congress that is willing to exercise its constitutional powers, not one that continues to cede them to Donald Trump.
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 47
Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States specifies the structure of Congress, and its powers. Article 1 section 8 lists most of it major powers; the limitations on those powers are given in section 9. Note that the list of powers explicitly given to Congress is quite long, particularly compared to the list of powers granted to the President by Article 2 section 2. Clearly Congress was meant to play a primary role in setting national policy. That's why it's in Article 1 rather than some later article.
Important powers specifically given to Congress include:
The power to impose taxes.
The power to declare war.
Many of the other powers given to Congress include a power to determine how the money raised by Federal taxes, or borrowed by the Federal government, is spent. This, combined with its power of taxation, is what is commonly called Congress' "power of the purse strings".
Perhaps most importantly, Clause 18 of Article 1 section 18 grants Congress broad power to
" … make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
The fundamental problems with the current Congress stem from its unwillingness to use its Constitutional powers.
It has become far too willing to delegate its power to the Executive branch.
It is unwilling to resist the usurpation of its powers by the Executive branch.
The system of "separation of powers" that we previously discussed only works if
each branch of government actively resists any attempt by the other branches to
usurp its powers. This of course will lead to disputes (possibly quite heated)
between the branches of government.
This is not a bug in the system; it's an
essential feature.
Without it one branch of government, and possibly even one individual,
can accumulate most if not all of the government's powers.
This is the path to tyranny.
Congress delegating some of its powers to the Executive Branch is not new, and it is not necessarily prohibited by the Constitution. There are cases where it's entirely reasonable for Congress to delegate some of its power. One example might be granting the Executive branch the authority to determine details of how a particular law passed by Congress should be implemented. But even when delegation is reasonable its scope should be limited, and explicitly defined by Congress.
The problem is over the last half-century (and possibly longer) Congress has increasingly delegated power to the Executive branch not because it's reasonable, but simply because the members of Congress do not want to make difficult decisions that might be unpopular with some of their constituents. To make matters worse Congress sometimes doesn't clearly define the powers it is delegating, or their limits.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on the United States provides a good example. Congress passed the AMUF instead of declaring war on Afghanistan. It gave the President the authority to use military force against any individual, group, or nation that he determined had "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the terrorist attacks. The intent was to authorize the use military force against the al-Qaeda terrorist group, and the Taliban-ruled nation of Afghanistan that harbored them. But its wording was so broad that Congress effectively delegated its power to declare war to the President: It granted the President the authority to determine which individuals, groups, and nations were subject to military action, and to decide what specific actions should be taken. It imposed no geographic or time limits, and provided no mechanism to review or override the President's decisions. The result is every president since 2001 has used the AUMF to self-authorize military actions around the world. In some cases these military actions are completely unrelated to the 11 September terrorist attacks. The Trump administration's attacks on suspected drug smuggling boats of the coast of Venezuela is a case in point. Drug smuggling clearly is conventional criminal activity, not terrorism.
We'll start by re-stating the fundamental governing principle we've already discussed above, and we'll add another:
No branch of government, or government official, can ever be allowed to have too much power.
As we've already noted, the entire structure of the Federal government defined by the U. S. Constitution reflects this principle.
All candidates for elected office must accept the results of the election.
All representative democracies, including the United States, depend on this basic principle. Any candidate who cannot accept the results of an election is almost by definition against democracy.
Donald Trump opposes both of these fundamental principles.
Donald Trump has clearly demonstrated that he does not believe in the "separation of powers".
His actions to date indicate he believes that, as President, he
should have absolute power. His enablers in Congress are all too willing to
give it to him.
This is un-American.
Donald Trump has clearly demonstrated that he is not willing to accept the results of any election that he does not win.
He consistently claims that elections can have only one possible outcome:
He and his supporters win; and if they somehow don't win, the election must
be fraudulent. Indeed, he continues to maintain that the 2020 election was
"stolen", despite the fact that neither he nor any of his
supporters have been able to produce any evidence of election fraud.
This is un-American.
The
FBI's 28 Jan 2026 seizure of 2020 election records in Fulton County,
Georgia
illustrates Trump's disdain for both principles. It strongly indicates
that Trump wishes to usurp the power of the states to conduct elections, and is
willing to misuse Federal law enforcement agencies to do it.
This is un-American.
The raid also indicates that Trump still does not accept the results of the
2020 election. He continues to falsely claim that his 2020 election loss in
Georgia was due to massive voting fraud.
The claim is transparently false:
Georgia's 2020 election results were audited and found to be accurate at least
3 times; its Secretary of State (who is responsible for administering the
state's elections) was a Republican who has aggressively enforced the state's
voter eligibility laws, including its citizenship requirement; and, and as we
previously mentioned, neither Trump nor any of his supporters have been able to
produce any evidence of election fraud. But apparently none of this
matters to Trump. He simply cannot admit that he lost an election.
This is un-American.
We'll end this section with a third fundamental principle of the United States:
The law should treat everyone equally.
This is commonly known as "equal protection under the law". We will discuss it further in later sections.
The Trump administration has taken other actions that demonstrate its intent to usurp powers that either belong to other branches of the Federal government, or don't belong to the Federal government at all.
The Trump administration is attempting to usurp the power to change the
Constitution of the United States.
This is un-American.
Article 5
of the Constitution explicitly gives that power to the states and the
Congress. The Executive branch of the Federal government is not given any power
to alter the Constitution in any manner.
Trump's desire to effectively change the Constitution are illustrated by his
repeated attempts to restrict the birthright of U.S. citizenship guaranteed by
the
14th Amendment to the Constitution.
It states this right in language so clear that only the highly trained
minds of three Yale and Harvard educated Justices who subscribe to the legal
philosophies of
textualism and
originalism can fail to
understand it.
The Trump administration clearly wishes to usurp the power of the states to
conduct elections.
This is un-American.
Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States
clearly says that the power to conduct elections belongs primarily to the
states, subject to regulation by Congress. The Executive branch of the Federal
government is given no role at all.
The 28 Jan 2026 FBI raid on the Fulton County, GA election operations center mentioned above demonstrates that he not only wishes to usurp the states' power to conduct elections; he is also willing to misuse Federal law enforcement agencies to do it.
One FBI raid to seize records might not seem particularly alarming, but the Trump administration has taken other actions to interfere with the authority of the states to conduct elections.
Trump has also made public statements that suggest his true intentions. In February 2026 he said
"The Republicans should say, 'We want to take over,' … We should take over the voting … in at least many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. We have states that are so crooked and they're counting votes."
And during his 2024 election campaign Trump said
"… get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, … In four years, you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote."
We need to elect a Congress that is willing to actively oppose Trump's attempts to usurp its power to regulate elections, and the power of the states to conduct those elections.
The Trump administration is attempting to usurp Congress' power to
declare war.
This is un-American. The power to declare war is explicitly
given to Congress by
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.
On 22 Jun 2025 the Trump administration joined Israel's war against Iran without obtaining (or even seeking) approval from Congress.
The Trump administration started a war with Iran on 28 Feb 2026 without obtaining (or even seeking) approval from Congress.
Like many recent presidents he claimed that the
War Powers Act of 1973 gave him
the authority to attack Iran because it presented an immediate threat to the
United States. (We'll discuss the merits of this assertion later.)
When the war lasted longer than the 60 days, instead of seeking the
Congressional approval as required by the War Powers Act, Trump concocted a
"creative" interpretation of the Act: He declared a "cease fire", and claimed
that it effectively stopped the Act's 60 day clock.
The War Powers Act says no such thing; the obvious shakiness of the
"cease fire" further eroded the credibility of Trump's claim.
The Trump administration used the U.S. military to attack Venezuela on 3 Jan 2026 without seeking approval from (or even notifying) Congress. Venezuela's dictator, Nicolás Maduro, was captured and taken to the United States. Trump claimed that the raid was a law enforcement operation rather than a military operation, and therefore did not require approval from Congress. It is true that Maduro had been indicted in the U.S., and law enforcement agents were present when he was captured; but a strike on a foreign country that involves a Navy carrier battle group, a Navy/Marine amphibious group, over 150 Air Force and Navy combat aircraft, and over 10,000 military personnel looks like a military operation to us.
Immediately following the attack the Trump administration hinted (possibly unwittingly) that law enforcement was mostly a pretext: During a 3 Jan 2026 press conference following the attack, Trump mentioned taking back oil that Venezuela "stole" far more than he mentioned bringing Maduro to justice.
The Trump administration has repeatedly used the U.S. military to attack
boats sailing in international waters far from the U.S. coast.
Attacking a
foreign vessel that is sailing in international waters and is incapable of
attacking the United States is an act of war. Whether or not the boats were
carrying illegal drugs is irrelevant.
The Trump administration is attempting to usurp Congress' power of taxation. This power is explicitly given to the House of Representatives by Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States. The obvious example is Trump's attempt to unilaterally impose import tariffs. Congress has granted the President some authority to impose tariffs in specific circumstances; but Trump has attempted to use this authority broadly, whether or not the intended circumstances actually exist.
The Trump administration is attempting to usurp the power of the
government's judicial branch to issue search, seizure, and arrest warrants.
This is un-American.
The power to issue search, seizure, and arrest warrants clearly belongs to
the judicial branch: If the Executive branch could issue warrants to its
own law enforcement agencies, the
4th Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States would be meaningless.
The January 2026 operations by Federal law enforcement agencies (notably Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol) in Minneapolis, MN provides an example: In at least one case ICE used an "administrative warrant" issued by the Department of Homeland Security - its parent agency, and a part of the Executive branch - to enter the home of a U.S. citizen without the homeowner's consent. The U.S. citizen was then arrested. He was later released when the ICE agents belatedly realized that he was a U.S. citizen with no criminal record.
In addition to attempting to usurp the powers of other parts of government, The Trump Administration has misused powers that actually are given to the Executive Branch by Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
Unfortunately Congress can do little to check Trump's misuse of the President's power to grant pardons, of which his blanket pardon of the convicted rioters who violently attacked Congress on 6 Jan 2021 is perhaps the most egregious example. But Congress does have some ability to limit other misuses of Executive Branch powers.
As we've noted elsewhere in this article the Trump Administration has already
demonstrated its willingness to misuse administrative warrants. It has also
clearly indicated that it is entirely willing to misuse the entire immigration
court system - which is an administrative court that is part of the Department
of Justice (DOJ) rather than a regular Judicial Branch court - to further its
agenda. Since at least
November 2025 the DOJ has been
advertising job openings for what it
openly calls deportation judges
instead of the job's official title,
"immigration judges"".
The clear implication is these administrative law judges, who we must emphasize
are employed by the Department of Justice, are expected to always rule to
deport defendants rather than rule impartially based on the merits of their
case. This would reduce the immigration courts to "kangaroo courts"
where a defendant can never win.
Congress can stop this.
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
. Congress can
create a Federal immigration court system within the Judicial Branch, removing
immigration courts from the Executive Branch.
The Trump administration has misused Executive Branch powers in other ways that directly threaten your Constitutional rights.
The Trump administration's efforts to usurp the states' power to conduct
elections that we discussed above
could
infringe your right to vote.
This is un-American.
The Trump administration is attempting misuse the Federal Communications
Commission to suppress speech and news coverage that it does not like.
This is un-American. It clearly infringes your free
speech and free press rights that are guaranteed by the
1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The FCC is not the only weapon Trump uses to suppress speech and news coverage that it does not like. His 18 Sep 2026 attempt to bar CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House is good example. Trump did not even try to hide his desire to suppress their free speech and free press rights, publicly saying
"Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America"This clearly violates the 1st Amendment's free speech and free press protections. In his temporary restraining order restoring their White House access, Federal district court judge Timothy J. Kelly also noted that it also likely violated the 5th Amendment's due process protections.
Trump is attempting to punish law firms that represent clients and/or causes
that he does not like. He has done this by issuing Executive Orders that deny
them any security clearances, and even the right to enter Federal buildings.
This is un-American. It clearly threatens your
right to counsel guaranteed by the
6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It also might
threaten your rights guaranteed by the
1st
and
5th
Amendments.
To date four of these law firms brought have challenged these orders in court, and so far all have won their cases. In all cases the courts found that the orders violated the 1st, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States by infringing the rights of free speech, free association, due process, equal protection under the law, and to be represented by counsel.
We must point out that the effects of the Executive Orders in question are not limited to a few large law firms. They can affect your rights. Consider: Your 6th Amendment right to representation by counsel is of little value if you can only choose between lawyers approved by the "ruling party".
Trump is misusing Federal law enforcement agencies to punish people he does not
like.
This is un-American.
His repeated attempts to prosecute former FBI director James Comey provide the most obvious example. During his term as FBI director Comey had investigated possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election; the alleged Russian interference had the goal of damaging the Democrat party's candidate, Hillary Clinton.
James Comey is not the only example. Trump has attempted to use the DOJ against numerous other actual and perceived opponents, including Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA); Federal Reserve Board member Jerome Powell; Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook; former New York State Attorney General Leticia James; Representative Ilhan Omar; and Minnesota state and local government officials who opposed the Jan 2025 ICE crackdown in Minneapolis.
One need not be a political figure or government official to become a target of Trump's retribution. The dubious 2 July 2026 indictment of David Hearn for allegedly vandalizing the National Mall's recently renovated reflecting pool demonstrates that merely bringing attention to the Trump administration's incompetence is enough to draw the attention of Trump's DOJ. The allegations against Hearn always appeared implausible, especially considering Donald Trump's earlier claim that the reflecting pool's new liner was virtually indestructible. We suspect Trump was simply trying to shift blame for the reflecting pool's obvious problems away from his botched renovation project. The DOJ tacitly admitted this in its 31 July motion to dismiss the indictment against Hearn:
"… after the return of the indictment, that the DOI [Department Of the Interior] provided additional documents to the USAO-DC [United States Attorney's Office, District of Columbia] indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor, Atlantic Industrial Coatings (“AIC”) … . It was not until after these documents were produced that USAO-DC first became aware of information showing that the damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism as initially represented by DOI."
But we digress. The key point is this: Trump is willing to use his Department of Justice against anyone.
He may, if it suits him, even use it against you.
We need a Congress that is willing to use its Constitutional powers to oppose
the Trump Administration's misuse of Executive Branch powers. If nothing else
it can use its "power of the purse strings" to curtail funding of the
Federal agencies Trump is misusing. We'll note that the last year Republicans
in Congress clawed back previously approved funds for existing programs the
Trump administration did not like.
The precedent has been set.
Trump often publicly praises dictators like Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of the People's Republic of China, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea.
Trump routinely treats friendly countries with democratically elected
governments with contempt.
Trump's absurd trade war with
Canada is an obvious
example.
Trump's publicly expressed desire to annex Greenland from Denmark is another.
The Trump administration's lukewarm support for Ukraine's efforts to defend itself against Russia's unprovoked full scale invasion demonstrates both his contempt for democracies and his affinity for dictatorships.
So does its embrace of Venezuela's dicatorial Chavista government and abandonment of its democratic opponents after the January 2026 U.S. military intervention that ousted dictator Nicolás Maduro. Trump left the remaineder of Maduro's Chavista government in power, with vice president Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela's acting president. The democratic opposition leaders Edmundo González Urrutia - widely believed to be the true winner of Venezuela's 2024 election - and María Corina Machado were abandoned.
" Let every American, … swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others.
… although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. "
- Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address, 27 Jan 1838.
The Trump administration behaves as if it believes it is above the law. Its mass deportation campaign using the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) provides once again provides a good example: ICE routinely ignores court orders that it considers unfavorable, as if it believes its actions are not subject to judicial review.
In his
28 January 2026 order
Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz noted that since 1 January 2026
there were at least 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases
,
and that ICE has likely violated more court orders January 2026 than some
federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.
Examples of the Trump administration's apparent corruption are numerous. We can only highlight a few.
Perhaps the most glaring example of corruption is Donald Trump's bogus attempt to sue the IRS over the 2019 leak of Trump's Federal income tax returns by Charles E. Littlejohn, who was an IRS contractor employed by Booz-Allen.
On 29 Jan 2026 Trump sued the IRS as a private citizen, despite the fact that as President he controls the Executive branch of the Federal Government, including the IRS and the Department of Justice (DOJ). This meant Trump was effectively both the plaintiff and the defendant in his lawsuit - an obvious conflict of interest.
Subsequent developments strongly suggest that the suit was a thinly disguised attempt to funnel $1.8 billion in government money - paid for by we, the taxpayers - to Trump and his associates.
This is just a brief summary. We discuss it in more detail here.
Trump's acceptance of the gift of a used Boeing 747-8 from Qatar for
conversion to his Air Force One certainly presents the appearance of
corruption. All Federal office holders are prohibited from accepting gifts
from foreign governments by the
U.S. Constitution's emoluments clause. Trump skirted this by claiming that
the 747 was a gift to the Department of Defense, and not to him; but he also
publicly said that it would be decommissioned after his term and transferred to
his presidential library.
That sounds more like it's a gift to him, and not to the United States.
Trump's official actions as President can and often do raise conflict of
interest concerns. The May approval of Nvidia's H20 chip exports to the People's
Republic of China is a good example. Export of these advanced chips, which have
both civilian and military uses, had been blocked due to U.S. national security
concerns.
Donald Trump reportedly owned between $1 million and $5 million of Nvidia stock
at the time.
Cryptocurrency may present an even larger conflict of interest. The short
version:
Trump's
2025 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report to the
U.S. Office of Government Ethics shows nearly $527 million in income from the
sale of cryptocurrency tokens by World Liberty Financial Inc. (WLFI), a
"decentralized finance" (DeFi) corporation founded by by the Trump
family. Trump and his family receive 75% of the revenue generated by WLFI's
cryptocurrency token sales.
This means any Trump administration action on cryptocurrency poses an inherent
conflict of interest.
Since Trump directly benefits from purchases of the $WLFI and USD1 tokens issued by WLFI, there is also an obvious concern that some $WLFI and USD1 purchases might be thinly disguised bribes.
Donald Trump likes to accuse political opponents on the Left of being communists, or at least socialists. In some cases the socialist label seems appropriate, but to us it looks like a classic case of "the pot calling the kettle black".
One definition of socialism is the government owns the means of production. The Trump administration is clearly taking us down that path.
In June 2025 the Trump administration dropped the government's opposition
of Nippon Steel Corporation's purchase of U.S. Steel in exchange for a
"golden share" in U.S. Steel. The "golden share" gives
the U.S. president the power to appoint one of U.S. Steel's three board
members, and veto power over the other two appointments; and the power to
veto corporate decisions. An
editorial published by the conservative Cato Institute said the
golden share should be seen as a de facto
nationalization
of U.S. Steel. We agree.
In July 2025 the U.S. Department of Defense purchased roughly 15% of rare-earths miner MP Materials.
In August 2025 the U.S. government purchased roughly 10% of semiconductor manufacturer Intel.
In August 2025 the Trump administration allowed chip makers AMD and Nvidia to sell their MI308 and H20 processors to the People's Republic of China, in exchange for the Federal government receiving 15% of the revenue. Export of these chips to China, which have both civilian and military uses, had been blocked due to U.S. national security concerns.
On 31 August 2026 the Trump administration announced that the Department of Defense's Office of Strategic Capital would aquire 35% of Venezuelan oil producer North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP). NABEP was founded in 2024. It is controlled by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt López, who is commonly known as Alejandro Betancourt. Betancourt was an ally of Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's communist dictator from 1999 to 2013. He has been under investigation by Spain, Switzerland, and the US for various financial crimes including bribery, embezzlement, and money laundering.
The Trump administration's selection of NABEP over the US based Chevron, which is currently Venezuela's largest oil producer, raises concerns of possible corruption.
At present the Trump administration is openly discussing the possibility of the Federal government purchasing stock in several major AI companies.
There are valid reasons for the Federal government to support U.S. companies producing products that are critical to the nation's security, but this is normally not done by directly purchasing all or even part of those companies. In the past it has only directly purchased shares in a corporation when it was in imminent danger of closing, and no private sector options were available. Even in these cases the government normally sold its stake once a private sector buyer could be found. The government bailout of General Motors following the 2008 financial crash is one example.
The Trump administration apparently intends for government's ownership stakes in U. S. Steel, MP Materials, and Intel - its ownership of the means of production - to be long term. This is at least highly unusual, and perhaps unprecedented.
And if maintaining industries critical to national security is the goal, allowing AMD and Nvidia to sell advanced chips to the People's Republic of China in exchange for a cut of the profits seems counterproductive. These chips can have military applications, and China has become increasingly aggressive in recent years. The deal suggests the Trump administration is more concerned about the money than the nation's security.
"When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract."
- V. I. Lenin? (apocryphal)
The various problems with reflecting pool on the National Mall immediately
following the Trump Administration's recent renovation project (and Trump's
effort to shift the blame) are well known example of the administration's
ineptitude. But in the grand scheme of things it's relatively minor.
The Trump Administration's conduct of the war with Iran is a far more
serious example of its incompetence.
As we previously noted, in late February President Trump launched a war with Iran without even seeking approval from Congress. The Trump Administration claimed that Iran presented such an imminent threat to the United States that immediate military action was essential. This is highly debatable, but we'll overlook that for the moment.
If immediate military action against Iran was required, then it was essential for the United States to enter the war with clear goals, and a well thought out strategy to achieve them.
Eight months later it's painfully clear that the Trump Administration began the
war with no clearly defined goals. Its stated goals changed frequently
(sometimes daily), and all too often seemed to be determined mostly by
President Trump's whims. They have ranged from Iran's unconditional surrender
to Iran re-opening the Strait of Hormuz (which was open before the war started)
in exchange for relief from prewar U.S. economic sanctions.
As retired U.S. diplomat
Alan Eyre remarked on the PBS NewsHour,
I think this administration is trying to justify the war the same way Jackson
Pollock used to paint. You just throw a bucket of reasons up against the canvas
and hope the result looks good.
At present we don't think the result looks good.
Without clearly defined goals for the war, it is impossible to devise a strategy to achieve them. This is likely to result in a strategic defeat for the United States, even though we may win most if not all of the battles. Indeed, the United States already appears to be heading for a strategic defeat.
To better understand the magnitude of the strategic defeat we now face, consider the conditions before the war started:
The Strait of Hormuz was completely open. Ships could freely transit the Strait without permission from Iran, and without paying any form of toll.
Iran's economy was crippled by U.S. and international economic sanctions.
Iran's deeply unpopular governing regime had barely survived a recent popular uprising. It was only able to suppress this uprising by massacring thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of the anti-government protesters.
Iran appeared militarily weak. It had been unable to protect itself from the 2025 U.S. and Israeli air strikes against its nuclear fuel production facilities, and its retaliatory drone and missile attacks against Israel and other regional U.S. allies were largely ineffective.
Now consider the conditions under the 17 June " Memorandum of Understanding" that intermittently pauses the war:
The Strait of Hormuz is at best only conditionally open. In early July ship
traffic through the Strait peaked at only about 1/3 of its prewar level.
Iran has demonstrated that it is willing and able to block the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran maintains that ships now require its permission to transit the Strait, and
it has shown it has some ability to enforce this.
The "Memorandum of Understanding" only states that Iran will
not charge a toll for transiting the Strait for 60 days. After that, all bets
are off.
The "Memorandum of Understanding" states that the U.S. would lift many of its economic sanctions on Iran, including some that were imposed before Trump took office in 2016, in exchange for Iran re-opening the Strait of Hormuz and promising not to develop nuclear weapons - in other words in exchange for Iran simply returning to its prewar position. The sanctions relief includes releasing frozen Iranian funds held in the United States. There is also a provision for an international fund for Iran's postwar reconstruction. The total value of the sanctions relief is quite large, and at least some of it would certainly be used to rebuild Iran's military.
There are some indications that Iran's governing regime might be at least slightly less unpopular than it was before the war. Chances are this is mainly the "rally around the flag" effect that's often seen when a nation faces an outside attack. It's almost impossible to accurately assess public opinion in a repressive dictatorship like Iran, but a reduction in opposition to the government still might be significant. It could make "regime change" in Iran less likely.
Despite its losses, Iran does not appear as militarily weak as it did before
the war.
Iran demonstrated that it could withstand combined major attacks by two
of the world's most formidable military powers, the United States and Israel.
Iran demonstrated that despite significant losses, its military remains
capable of launching damaging missile and drone attacks against U.S. regional
allies.
Iran has also demonstrated that its military, despite its losses, remains
capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz. Following the mid July breakdown of
the cease-fire under the "Memorandum of Understanding" Iran's missile
and drone attacks again restricted shipping traffic through the Strait. It gets
worse: Iran's Houthi allies in Yemen now threaten to block the Bab el-Mandeb
strait - the main alternate route for oil shipments from Saudi Arabia.
The effect is Iran is able to hold the world's economy hostage.
To make matters even worse, the Trump Administration seems to have entered the war without even more basic planning.
It failed to make any effort to enlist the support of any U.S. allies apart from Israel, which already had a strong desire to strike Iran. In fact it did not bother to consult with our allies at all, probably because many of them would have advised against starting the war. The entirely predictable result was many of our allies were reluctant (and in some cases entirely unwilling) to support us after the war began.
It failed to make contingency plans to counter Iran's probable responses to a major U.S. strike.
Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz illustrates this point: It seemed to take Trump and his Department of Defense completely by surprise, even though it was glaringly obvious to anyone with even a casual knowledge of the region that it was likely to be one of Iran's first actions. The Trump Administration clearly had no plan to counter this easily predictable Iranian move. It could only loudly try to coerce our reluctant allies - the same allies it failed to consult before starting the war - to clear the Strait for us.
The Trump Administration actually anti-prepared itself (probably unwittingly) to counter Iran's closure of the Strait when it retired four of the U.S. Navy's eight oceangoing minesweepers in September 2025. While it's true that these ships were over 30 years old, there are no replacements. And with the USN's even more limited minesweeping capability, Iran could stop commercial ship traffic through the Strait by laying just a few dozen mines.
The Trump Administration also seems to be entirely unaware of the time required to replace key weapons that we are rapidly expending in the war. Patriot antimissile and antiaircraft missiles are a good example. Significant numbers of Patriots have been used to intercept low cost, low performance Iranian drones that could have been destroyed by less sophisticated (and less costly) air defense systems. One Patriot missile costs roughly $4 million, and new ones take about 18 months to deliver. There are already indications of shortages: Patriot batteries have been shifted to the Persian Gulf region from other parts of the world; and Patriot exports to Ukraine - which urgently needs them to intercept Russian ballistic missiles - appear to have stopped entirely.
It's worth noting that before their supplies ran out the Ukrainian military
only used its Patriot missiles against attacking missiles and high performance
aircraft that cannot be stopped by less sophisticated air defense systems. They
developed inexpensive and highly effective interceptor drones to counter
Russia's attack drones.
Why hasn't the United States done something similar?
Unnecessarily using $4 million missiles that are difficult to replace to
shoot down Iranian attack drones that cost perhaps 1% as much and can be
quickly produced in great numbers is a losing proposition.
One need look no further than the Department of Health and Human Services for glaring examples of the Trump Administration's domestic policy incompetence.
In 2025 the Trump Administration cut Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) grants to state health departments by roughly 40%; Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) grants were also cut. Predictably many states were
forced to reduce staff at their health and food safety programs, which often
rely on these grants.
The CDC also significantly reduced its own staff.
In an
interview on NPR's Morning Edition
West Virgina based environmental health consultant Bob Custard remarked
This is like we have a house, and we've just decided to start taking
smoke detectors out.
The response to the unusually large outbreak of the intestinal disease Cyclosporiasis that began late this spring illustrates the consequences. This disease is caused by the Cyclospora parasite, and it is transmitted by contaminated food or water. To date the source of the infection has not been identified; we're not even certain when the outbreak actually began.
It's also worth noting that in July 2025 the CDC stopped requiring reporting of cyclosporiasis, depriving both the CDC and state health departments of important data.
The dramatic increase in measles cases since the beginning of Trump's 2nd term is further evidence of the incompetent leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services. The total number of measles cases reported reported to the CDC in 2025 was 2,289 - the worst since 1992, and over 4 times the total for Joe Biden's entire 4 year term. The situation in 2026 is already even worse: As of 24 September 3,659 cases have been reported to the CDC. For comparison from 1993 through 2024 there were typically around 100 cases per year.
Measles is easily prevented with a vaccine that's been widely used for many
years. Until 2020 roughly 95% of children entering school were vaccinated; the
remainder could not be vaccinated for medical reasons. Since then the
percentage has declined to about 91%. The large increase in measles cases is
the consequence of this seemingly small decline.
The decline has been driven by a vocal group that opposes vaccinations for
reasons known only to themselves. One of the most vocal is Trump's Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
At July's AIDS 2026 conference in Rio de Janeiro a presentation by the U.S. State Department showed a map of Africa that mislabeled every country it highlighted.
The Trump administration cut roughly 1/3 of the State Department's staff in 2025. Blunders like this may be the most visible consequence, though not necessarily the most important one. The long term consequences of this particular gaffe are probably negligible, but we can't help wondering if the State Department is handling far more important matters - for example negotiating with Iran - with similar ineptitude.
Once, political parties represented particular ideas about policy and political principles. For the two dominant parties, this is no longer the case. While both parties pay lip service to principles, in practice both are primarily concerned with maintaining their power, and helping their friends.
Both parties rely on fear mongering to motivate their voters instead of offering actual policy choices. In an election the positions of both come down to "If the other party wins, disaster will surely follow! They will [ insert something you think will frighten your party's base here; it doesn't matter whether it's true or false. ]!" Another common election argument used by candidates from both parties is "I might be a bum, but the other candidate is even worse!"
We cannot say that we were not warned:
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State … . Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. "
- George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)
In the past the Republican Party generally stood for a set of principles that included: Competent governance; rule of law; a limited role for the Federal government, as defined by the US Constitution; fiscal restraint; engagement with the rest of the world through robust diplomacy and international institutions; a strong national defense to deter potential aggressors; and free (more or less) market economics.
All of these principles have been abandoned. The Republican Party is now the Party of Trump. It is little more than a cult of personality. Its only “principle” is agreeing with whatever Donald Trump happens to be saying today. Anyone who dares to disagree with Donald Trump on any issue is quickly cast out. With few exceptions those who remain inside the Republican Party are either Trump loyalists, those who still foolishly believe they can exploit Donald Trump and his loyalists, or cowards who are unwilling to risk losing office by opposing Donald Trump.
None of them are worthy of our votes.
Today's Republican Party is dysfunctional to the point of being dangerous. At worst it panders shamelessly to the darkest side of human nature: Fear, hatred, and bigotry. At best it tolerates those who do the pandering. It no longer stands for any principles, save one:"Il Duce ha sempre ragione" - The Leader is always correct. By submitting to Trump’s cult of personality, it has stepped onto a slippery slope that ends in tyranny.
Today's Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln, nor the party of Reagan, Roosevelt (Teddy), Eisenhower, Ford, Bush (either one), or even Nixon. When pressed, Nixon was at least willing to put the nation's interests above his own. (And he did it more than once.)
We think it is time for the Republican Party to go the way of the American Party of the 1850s, and for many of the same reasons.
The Democratic Party's faults have changed distressingly little since our 2020 election commentary. To date the Democrats in Congress have given us little reason to believe their party will change.
The Democratic Party held a majority in Congress for the first half of President Biden's term. During this time they continued to allow U.S. military strength to deteriorate, even while foreign powers that might not be entirely friendly became increasingly aggressive. The decision to retire all 22 of the U.S. Navy's then remaining cruisers without replacement is a good example.
While the Democratic Party held a majority in Congress they did little if anything to restrain the government's deficit spending despite increasing inflation. Instead, they continued to pass expensive programs largely funded by deficit spending. The Democrats certainly do not deserve all of the blame for the inflation of the early 2020s; the first Trump administration could hardly be described as frugal. Further, the Federal Reserve Board’s (headed by a Trump appointee) failure to raise interest rates in a timely manner certainly contributed to the problem. But the Democrats in Congress (and Biden administration) made no discernible effort to restrain spending before they lost their majority in 2022.
They have continued to practice "identity politics", much like the Republicans. The main difference is which "identities" they claim to support.
Since President Biden campaigned as a candidate of unity we had hoped for better, but we can't say we're surprised. “Identity politics” has been a major problem with the Democratic Party for decades.
In recent years we've seen at least a few losing Democratic party candidates
raise dubious claims of election fraud, demonstrating that Donald Trump and the
Republican party are not alone in being reluctant to accept the results of an
election they do not win.
The 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election is a good example.
After losing the election 48.8% - 50.2% (54,723 votes) to Republican candidate
Brian Kemp, Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams
refused to say that the result was legitimate, and claimed without evidence
that Republican voter suppression tactics had affected the results. Election
turnout was actually much higher than the 2014 election; and the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that most voting problems were
mostly due to errors, not malfeasance. The
Federal judge's ruling in subsequent lawsuits brought by a group affiliated with
Abrams found essentially the same thing.
But as late as 2022
Abrams still claimed that the 2018 election results were affected by voter suppression.
There are however important differences between Trump's election denial and
Abrams': Abrams acknowledged that Kemp was Georgia's legal governor; and,
unlike Donald Trump, she did not attempt to incite her supporters to riot.
The Democratic Party cannot win the Senate and House 2026 with only the support of its base. If it wants to win in November, it needs to earn the support of centrist voters who are highly skeptical of the far left policies favored by its base. It needs to earn the support of people like us.
The first step the Democratic Part must take:
Stop creating Trump voters!
The Democratic Party must recognize that the issues that Donald Trump exploits are real, and in the past the Democratic Party has failed to address them. It must not simply write off voters who care about these issues, as it has often done in the past. It also must at least recognize the problems with the Democratic Party that we summarized in the previous section.
If the Democratic Party wishes to earn the votes of centrist, center-right, and principled conservatives - voters like us - it must run with platform that we can support, or at least accept. If its candidates are unsure about which issues are most important to voters outside the Democratic party's base, they might refer to the well known observation of a former president:
"It's the economy, stupid."
A lurch to the far left might appeal to a vocal segment of the
Democratic Party's membership. Far left candidates might even be able to win in
congressional districts that that are already solidly Democratic and liberal.
But far left candidates are unlikely to go over well in other congressional
districts, or in the statewide elections for the U.S. Senate.
The under-performance of the Democratic Party in the 2020, 2022, and 2024
elections should provide a cautionary tale.
In the 2020 elections the Democratic Party failed to gain a majority in the
U.S. Senate, and lost 14 seats in the House of Representatives,
despite the unpopularity of incumbent Republican president Trump and the
Republican Party generally. We believe this lackluster performance is largely
attributable to a phrase that was popular among the Democratic Party's left
wing at the time: "De-fund the police."
Apparently the voters didn't think this was a good idea.
In the 2022 elections the Democratic party did manage to gain a 1 seat majority in the Senate, but they lost another 9 seats - and their majority - in the House of Representatives. We believe two factors contributed to the Democrats' losses: High inflation that was fueled in part by deficit spending on programs passed by the (mostly) Democratic party controlled Congress during 2021 and 2022; and by then President Joe Biden's difficulties getting his legislative agenda through Congress. Biden's programs were held up for months not by Republicans, but by left wing Democrats who were unwilling to compromise with more centrist Democrats.
In the 2024 elections the Democratic party managed to regain two seats in the House of Representatives, but this still left them in the minority. In the Senate they lost 4 seats, and their majority; and the Democratic party's presidential candidate Kamala Harris was defeated, narrowly losing even the popular vote. The party suffered these loses despite the fact that inflation had fallen substantially from its 2022 peak, and was continuing to improve while unemployment remained low; and despite the fact that Republican candidate Donald Trump was a convicted felon who was also under indictment for (among other things) gross mishandling of highly classified government documents.
The Democrats' 2024 losses in the Senate were exacerbated by what soccer fans
might describe as an "own goal":
The "progressive" wing of the Democratic party pushed centrist
Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia out of the
party, and neither ran for re-election. Sinema was replaced by a Democrat,
though the election was closer than expected; and the Manchin was replaced by a
strongly pro-Trump Republican who won by a large margin.
We fear that the Democratic party's recent selection of far left
candidates for U.S. Senate in Florida and Michigan might become a similar
"own goal".
Unfortunately we still see little evidence that the Democratic party's left wing is any more willing to work with people who disagree with their policies than they were in 2022 and 2024, even when the people who disagree are within the Democratic Party.
On 19 August 2026 the national debt reached $40,000,000,000,000 ($40 trillion), and it continues to grow. For comparison the national debt was $34 trillion in 2024, $26 trillion in 2020, and $19 trillion in 2016. $40 trillion is around 123% of GDP.
The Federal deficit for 2026 alone is already nearly $2 trillion - more than the deficit for all of 2025, and the largest annual deficit since 2021.
We once again will note that the annual interest payment on the National Debt now exceeds the entire defense budget. If current trends continue it will eventually exceed the Social Security budget.
This is unsustainable.
To date neither the Democratic nor Republican parties have shown any willingness to address the problem, probably because any solution will involve difficult and unpopular choices. But the problem won't go away on its own, and doing nothing now will leave us with even worse options in the future.
The Social Security Administration's 2026 Annual Report projects that its Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund will be depleted by 2032. Once it's depleted Social Security payroll taxes can only pay for about 78% of Social Security benefits payments; then either Social Security benefits must be cut to 78% of present benefits, or Congress must make up the shortfall through the regular Federal budget. Things will get steadily worse after 2032.
Using the regular Federal budget to make up for the shortfall will mean either raising Federal taxes, cutting other Federal programs, increasing the national debt, or some combination of all three.
History suggests Congress will choose to raise the national debt, ignoring the probable future consequences.
We touched upon this issue in our discussion of the Patriot missile supply shortages exposed by the Iraq war. The Patriot missile supply is just one symptom of deeper long term problems with our entire weapons procurement system, and of the declining U.S. industrial base that produces these weapons. These are not new problems, and Congress hasn't adequately addressed them.
Congress deserves a share of the blame for the weapons procurement problems, and for the decline in the U.S. industrial base that produces the weapons. Congress normally allocates funds for weapons procurement annually, and priorities can (and too often do) change frequently. Privately owned producers can hardly be blamed for being reluctant to make expensive investments to increase production capacity when demand is so uncertain.
At a minimum Congress should provide funding for weapons procurement that is consistent for more than one year. Existing U.S. law allows the Department of Defense to issue multi-year procurement (MYP) contracts for ships and other weapons, but they must be approved by Congress. To its credit Congress has approved more of these since 2021, but they are still not common. And MYP contracts alone are unlikely to solve the problem. More radical solutions still might be required.
Whatever approaches we choose, solving this problem will not be easy. It took us decades to get into this situation, and it will probably take years to fix it.
The sooner we start, the better.
One of the reasons both the Democratic and Republican parties are broken is the primary election system. While there is considerable variation in primary election systems from state to state, in the past they have generally used voting systems similar to the general election: Voters cast a vote for one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes is the winner. This works well when there are only two or three candidates for each office; but primary elections often have larger numbers of candidates for an office. This can lead to situations where the winning candidate is supported by only a small portion of the electorate. Consider a primary with five candidates where the four losing candidates each receive 19.5% of the vote, and the winning candidate receives 22%. In this case 78% of the voters voted against the "winner". Some states try to correct this by holding a runoff primary when no candidate wins an majority of the vote. But in our hypothetical primary, this would mean a runoff between two candidates who indent were initially not supported by 58.5% of the voters. This might be acceptable if all of the primary candidates reasonably reflected the views of most voters. But in practice candidates with more extreme positions are more likely to win in a crowded primary. The reasons are simple: Those who disagree with the "extreme" candidate have many other candidates to choose from, while those who support the "extreme" candidate have only one option; and those who strongly favor a particular position or candidate are more likely to vote in primaries than voters who don't. Over time this has driven both parties to opposite extremes that most voters don't actually support.
In 2022 Alaska switched to a different primary voting system: Top Four voting. All primary candidates from all parties are on one ballot. The four candidates who get the most primary votes regardless of party advance to the general election. The results to date seem to favor less extreme candidates, which is encouraging.
Alaska also used a different voting system for its 2022 special Congressional election: Ranked Choice voting. In this system voters cast 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice votes instead of a single vote. If no candidate gets a majority of the 1st choice votes, the 2nd choice votes are counted; if there is still no candidate with a majority, 3rd choice votes are counted. The results of this election were also encouraging.
Some local primary elections have also used Ranked Choice voting with encouraging results. New York City used Ranked Choice voting in its 2021 Democratic Party primary for mayor, and the winner was a former police officer who ran on a centrist "law and order" platform. He subsequently won the general election by a large margin. (He did not run for re-election in 2025 following a corruption scandal. This however does not invalidate our main point: Ranked choice voting in primaries can produce less extreme general election candidates.)
We fear that both major parties may be beyond saving. They need to be replaced. Unfortunately this will not be easy. The one thing the Democratic and Republican Parties agree on is that any alternative parties must be kept off the ballot whenever possible.
Even ignoring obstruction by the entrenched major parties, voters in most Congressional elections will find few if any alternatives. We only know of a handful of other national political parties that can even remotely be considered viable.
At the moment the Libertarian Party is the only 3rd party that is reliably on the ballot in most if not all states.
We're encouraged by the Forward Party's stated
goal of building a new centrist party. But as of 31 August it has only four
of its own candidates on the ballot: Andy Kaplan for Congress in South
Carolina; Bob Chew for US Senate in Colorado; Celeste Landry for Colorado
Secretary of State; and Jay Reeves for State Auditor of Minnesota.
They have endorsed independent candidates for US Senate in South
Dakota, Montana, and Idaho; for the US Congress in Iowa, Montana, Ohio, and
Wisconsin; and for various state offices in Maine, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
and Washington. They also have endorsed one Democratic Party candidate for
US Congress in New York.
The Forward party has the advantage of not being a party built on the candidacy of a single presidential candidate. (Remember Ross Perot and the Reform Party?) We’re willing to listen to what they have to say, it is incumbent upon them to say something meaningful.
As of August 2026 the slightly older Alliance Party had not announced any candidates. In the past it has fielded candidates in a few Congressional districts and for some state offices in Minnesota, South Carolina, and Washington.
As of May 2026 the Green Party had not announced any candidates for Congress. They do have candidates running for some state and local offices.
In the past we've mentioned the Unity Party To date it has not announced any candidates for the 2026 elections, and its web site doesn't appear to have been updated since 2025. It might have merged with the Justice for All party.
First of all, make sure that you do vote. It's your most basic
responsibility as a citizen of the United States. Do not fall into the trap of
thinking you can avoid this responsibility. If you don't vote, you are
effectively casting a vote for the status quo. The eventual winner will regard
it as an endorsement, whether you actually agree with them or not. Not voting
also tells the anti-democratic forces overseas that democracy is weak.
Not voting is the worst possible thing you can do.
Second, vote your conscience. That's what democracy is all about. Even if you disagree with us, you must vote your conscience.
Those who have read our previous election commentaries will know that we are not fans of "strategic voting", or voting for "the lesser of evils". While we still believe in voting your conscience, in this election those living in competitive districts do need to consider the implications of a victory by the "greater of evils".
So if you do agree with us, and think the major (and minor) parties are unacceptable, what should you do?
Write-in votes are still legal.
If, like most of us, you live in a state or congressional district that is
dominated by one party, it's not difficult to vote your conscience. Since your
individual vote is unlikely to change the outcome of the election, you can vote
for someone who is not a major party candidate with little concern for the
possible consequences. If you don’t find anyone you can support on the ballot,
write someone in. You could hardly do any worse than the two major parties. If
nothing else it's a protest vote against the status quo in both major parties.
Do not be deterred by people who say you are "throwing your
vote away" if you don't vote for a major party candidate. You are only
throwing your vote away if you vote for someone you don't believe in.
Voting for one of the major party candidates when it's against your conscience
will only tell the major parties they don't need to change, and they can
continue to take your vote for granted.
If, on the other hand, you live in a “swing” district or state, voting your conscience can be more difficult, because your vote might have real consequences for the nation. If your conscience demands that you vote for a major party candidate as the "lesser of evils", then that is how you should vote. If you live in a state that has a Senate election, we suggest that you consider “ticket splitting”, and vote for the opposite major parties' candidates for the House and Senate. While this might produce “gridlock” in Washington DC, it might be better than allowing one of the major parties to easily implement their agenda.
Before you cast your vote, consider another responsibility as a citizen of the United States: Familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution. and its amendments. (It's not that long, and you don't have to read it in one sitting.)
We will be governed by a few simple principles in this election:
We will not support any candidate for any office who even tacitly condones
violence.
Violence by anyone, whether they're shouting the slogans of the
political Left or the political Right (or anything in between), has no
place in a democratic election.
We will not support any candidate for any office who does not publicly say they will respect the results of the 2026 election.
We will not support any candidate for any office who does not publicly
acknowledge that the results of previous national elections are legitimate.
The 2020 presidential election was
not
stolen. Neither were the 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, or 2024
presidential elections; and neither were any recent congressional
elections.
We will not support any candidate for any office who supports Donald
Trump.
Indeed, we’re inclined to vote against any Republican who
does not
publicly
repudiate Donald Trump. We consider
silence to be tacit support.
A healthy press is vital to a functioning democracy. The news media needs to do a better job. Once again distressingly little has changed since our 2024 election commentary. If anything things have gotten worse.
Issues vs. “Horse Race”
One problem with the news media that we've mentioned before is that election
coverage often fails to adequately discuss issues. Ideally, election coverage
should inform the public about key issues in the election. Examples include
what each candidate proposes to do if elected, and how those proposals might
address the issues they are meant to address. But too often coverage focuses on
the "horse race" aspects of the election: Which candidate is ahead in
opinion polls, campaign strategies, and the like. There is also too much
focus on what might be called "palace intrigue": Who is "in" or "out" with
their party's leadership, which factions within each party are "up" or "down",
and the like.
While these topics are at least somewhat worthy of reporting,
they should be secondary. Unfortunately the pattern of covering the “horse
race” and "palace intrigue" more than actual policy positions does not seem to
have improved in 2026.
What's gone wrong at the PBS NewsHour
The PBS NewsHour has been our favorite television news program since its
September 1983 debut. (And even earlier if we include its half-hour
precursors The Robert MacNeil Report and The MacNeil/Lerher Report.) The
NewsHour's in-depth news coverage was, in our opinion, vastly
superior to the news coverage provided by the other broadcast networks.
But things have changed at the NewsHour, and not necessarily for the better.
We've previously expressed our dismay with the trends at the PBS NewsHour since the 2013 transfer of production from MacNeil/Lehrer Productions to Washington DC station WETA. News analysis once featured interviews with several policy makers and/or experts on the topic with differing points of view; now it often features a discussion with another reporter. When a segment does present expert analysis, all too often there is only one analyst who is from an advocacy organization promoting a specific point of view. The NewsHour's recent report on the EPA's repeal of some power plant emissions rules is a good example. The only analyst interviewed was the general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) - an organization that advocates for tighter environmental regulations. There is certainly nothing wrong with the NewsHour presenting the EDF's point of view on an environmental issue, but we should also hear other perspectives. Presenting only one point of view goes against former NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer's 3rd Rule of Journalism: "Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."
Recently we've noticed another sign of the NewsHour's declining quality: Transcripts of the NewsHour broadcasts posted on their web site once typically contained links to related primary source material (press releases, public records, court documents, etc.), or to in-depth reports from other news organizations; now they all too often do not. When links are provided, they now typically only link to other NewsHour reports.
What's gone wrong at NPR
We have long regarded NPR as “a bunch of
flaming liberals”, but we respected them for their in-depth reporting.
But in recent years NPR's news reporting has also changed, and not
necessarily for the better.
Longtime NPR reporter Uri Berliner left the organization in 2024, and wrote a
scathing column about the problems at the network. We urge you to read it.
(A PDF version of Berliner's essay is available
here.)
In brief Berliner argues that since 2016 NPR's news coverage has shifted from
open minded journalism with some center-left slant to thinly disguised liberal
advocacy. We tend to agree. NPR's declining audience size suggests we're not
the only ones who agree.
NPR's April 2024 news report regarding Berliner's departure may also be of interest. It includes some of NPR's replies to Berliner's criticism.
What the Media should do to fix its problems
All of the news media, including PBS and NPR, would do well to review the late Jim Lehrer's rules of journalism:
Do nothing I cannot defend.
Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.
Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label everything.
Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should be allowed to attack another anonymously.
“I am not in the entertainment business.”
These rules alone can't fix all of the news media's problems, but they're an excellent place to start.
Lack of civility goes hand-in-hand with polarization, and polarization will be
our undoing.
Polarization is exactly what the enemies of democracy want. It is
one of the oldest strategies known to humanity:
Divide and Conquer.
Once again we cannot say we were not warned. In Federalist No. 10 James Madison wrote:
" AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed … as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. … The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. "(Emphasis added.)
And as Abraham Lincoln (paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 12:25) famously noted,
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
We need to re-learn how to disagree with each other without turning the other side into a mortal enemy.
The Disagree Better initiative launched by Utah Governor Spencer Cox in 2023 is one organization that is working to do this. It is based on a simple idea: Political leaders from all parties should treat each other respectfully, even during heated debates. Their example should encourage everyone else to do the same. Among other things it provides practical suggestions for political candidates who want their campaigns to reflect this principle. It has already attracted support from members of both major parties, including 23 state governors.
Cox' new book "Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt" extends the concept of Disagree Better to the rest of us.
If you have not read it already,
Sen.
McCain's final statement is well worth reading. Most of the news media only
read excerpts.
If we are to honor his memory, then perhaps the best we can do is
talk to each other, especially those we disagree with, in a civil
fashion.
Listen to them too. Most of your "opponents" are
reasonable people, not 3-headed monsters.
Civility alone will not solve all of our problems, but it is an
excellent place to start.
Don't let the forces of polarization win.
We will again close with the immortal words of Harry Tuttle, the outlaw plumber from the movie "Brazil": "We're all in this together, kid."
© 2026 David R. Wells & Lawrence H. Wells
Click here to return to the Wells Brothers home page.