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.

1. What is at stake

" … 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.

2. As a U.S. citizen, you have a vital role

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.

3. Why Congressional elections matter

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:

  1. 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

3.1. The role of Congress, and how the present Congress is shirking it.

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:

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.

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.

3.2. Other fundamental principles of the United States

We'll start by re-stating the fundamental governing principle we've already discussed above, and we'll add another:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

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:

  1. The law should treat everyone equally.

This is commonly known as "equal protection under the law". We will discuss it further in later sections.

4. Why we need Congress to use its power to check Donald Trump

4.1. Trump's attempts to usurp the powers of other parts of government must be checked

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.

4.2. Trump's misuse of Executive Branch powers must be checked

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.

Other misuses of Executive Branch powers that threaten your Constitutional rights

The Trump administration has misused Executive Branch powers in other ways that directly threaten your Constitutional rights.

  • 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.

    • On 28 April 2026 the FCC directed ABC to to file early license renewals for all of their television stations within 30 days. These licenses would normally have been due for renewal until 2028. Coincidentally the FCC's directive came one day after President Donald Trump and Melania Trump publicly objected to a joke told by comedian Jimmy Kimmel during the 23 April broadcast of ABC's "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" show; and after Donald Trump publicly called for ABC to fire Kimmel.

      This is clearly an attempt to suppress Kimmel's right to free speech that is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If Trump is permitted use the power of the government to suppress Kimmel's right to speak freely, he can also use the power of the government to suppress your right to speak freely.

    • On 26 January 2026 the FCC's Media Bureau released a public notice stating television talk shows that interview political candidates might be subject to the "equal time" rule. Previously such interviews were considered "bona fide news interviews" that were not subject to the "equal time" rule. One reason for this exception is applying "equal time" rules to such interviews during an election with many candidates would require so much air time that broadcasters would likely stop airing any candidate interviews; and this would deprive voters of essential information they require to cast an informed vote.

      In February 2026 the FCC began an "equal time" investigation into the ABC television program "The View" after it aired an interview with Senate candidate James Talrico, who was then running in the Texas Democratic Party primary election. Talrico frequently criticizes Donald Trump. In 2002 the FCC had formally ruled that "The View" was a "bona fide news interview program" that was not subject to the "equal time" rule. The FCC then ordered ABC affiliate station KTRK-TV to file a new petition requesting an "equal time" exemption for "The View&qout;, even though the FCC's original 2002 ruling remained in effect. ABC complied, noting in its new petition that the FCC's 2002 ruling remained in effect and had never even been modified.
      It's worth noting that the FCC did not raise similar "equal time" concerns against programs that aired interviews with candidates in the Republican Party's primaries.

      The FCC also took the unusual step of ordering all ABC owned television stations, including KTRK-TV, to immediately submit early license renewals to the FCC.

      Taken together the FCC's actions certainly look like an attempt to infringe on not only the free speech rights of those appearing on ABC stations, but also on ABC's free press rights under the 1st Amendment.

      CBS then self-censored by removing an interview with James Talarico from the 16 February broadcast of "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert".
      This demonstrates that the previously mentioned concern that, absent the "bona fide news" exception, broadcasters might refuse to air any candidate interviews was well founded.
      It also demonstrates that the FCC's actions against ABC might lead other broadcasters to avoid airing any programs that the Trump Administration might find objectionable.

  • 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 he 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.
    Trump's Department of Justice first attempted to charge Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing Congress during a 30 Sep 2020 Senate Judiciary hearing. When Erik Sieber, US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia (which covers Washington DC) refused to charge Comey (and also Leticia James, another Trump opponent), Trump fired him and appointed Lindsey Halligan as his replacement.
    Halligan had no experience as a prosecutor, but had been one of Trump's personal attorneys. Comey was indicted five days later, on 25 Sep 2025. The indictment did not specify which of Comey's statements were false, or how they obstructed Congress.

    On November 24, 2025, senior United States district judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Halligan had been appointed illegally, and that all of her prosecutorial actions - including indicting Comey - were therefore invalid.

    On January 12, 2026 Robert McBride, another prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia, was fired after refusing to re-indict Comey on the same charges.

    The failure of the "obstruction of Congress" indictment did not end the Trump administration's attempts to punish Comey: On 28 April 2026 the Department of Justice indicted Comey on the dubious charge of threatening the life of the President by publicly posting a photo of sea shells arranged to spell "8647". The case is ongoing, but we note that that another Federal judge recently rejected a similar charge against protesters flying an "8647" flag.

    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; 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 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 and the Trump itself clawed back previously approved funds for existing programs the administration did not like.
The precedent has been set.

4.3. Other reasons to oppose Trump

Lawlessness

" 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.

Official Lawlessness

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.

Corruption

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. Littlejohn later pleaded guilty to charges related to the leak, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison. 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, which includes the IRS. As previously noted the Executive Branch also includes the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is normally responsible for representing Federal agencies in lawsuits. Trump himself emphasized his control over the entire Executive branch in his Executive Order 14215. This effectively meant Trump was both the plaintiff and the defendant in his lawsuit - an obvious conflict of interest.

    Neither the IRS or DOJ filed any responses to Trump's lawsuit. On 18 May 2026 Trump's attorney filed a "Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice" , citing the lack of response by the defendants. It did not mention any out of court settlement. It did argue that the notice automatically terminated the case, and completely removed it from the jurisdiction of the court. Judge Kathleen M. Williams cancelled all hearings and ruled all pending motions moot.

    The Department of Justice then announced the "settlement", which included immunity from IRS audits for his relatives, his companies, and "affiliates"; and a $1.8 billion fund to compensate individuals who claim they were maliciously prosecuted by the Biden administration. We note that Trump claims to be a victim of a malicious prosecution. The fund would be administered by a 5 person board, with four members appointed by Trump's acting Attorney General and former personal attorney Todd Blanche.

    This $1.8 billion fund would be paid for by we, the taxpayers.

    Almost immediately a group of 35 former Federal judges filed a motion asking the court to reopen the case on the grounds that the lawsuit was a fraud upon the court, because the plaintiff and defendant were effectively the same. Judge Williams agreed, and ruled that the lawsuit was invalid . She also took the unusual step of referring several of Trump's attorneys to their state bar associations for disciplinary action. But it's not clear that this will have much practical effect, since Trump remains in full control of the Department of Justice.

    During his confirmation hearings in early August, Blanche provided a written statement to the U.S. Senate that said the fund would not be implemented; but Donald Trump continues to say otherwise.

  • 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. Had Qatar given the plane directly to Trump, it would have been a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution's emoluments clause, which prohibits all Federal office holders from accepting gifts of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State without authorization from Congress.
    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.

    An interesting aside to this was Trump's use of an entirely different military transport to leave Ankara, Turkey following July's NATO summit meeting. He had used the new Air Force One to travel to the summit, but appeared to switch to the old Air Force One for the first leg of his return trip. It was later disclosed that he had actually used another military VIP transport, and the old Air Force One had in effect been a decoy. The multiple switches raised questions about whether the hastily converted Qatari 747 actually had all of the security and self-defense systems required by an Air Force One. It also called the true cost of this "free" 747 into question.

  • 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.

    Trump's official actions regarding cryptocurrency may be a more egregious example. His 2025 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics shows over $57,000,000 in income from World Liberty Financial Inc. (WLFI), a "decentralized finance" (DeFi) corporation founded by by the Trump family. Its major holdings include Ethereum, wrapped Bitcoin, and the $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins. It issues two cryptocurrency tokens: $WLFI, and the "stablecoin" USD1. 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.

    On 2 March 2025 Trump announced the creation of a "U.S. Crypto Reserve" in a social media post , and specifically stated that it would include Cardano (ADA), Ripple (XRP), and Solana (SOL). Four days later Trump issued Executive Order 14233 formally directing the Secretary of the Treasury to create a "United States Digital Asset Stockpile", and also a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" holding exclusively Bitcoin - one of the crypto assets held by Trump via World Liberty Financial.

    Since Trump directly benefits from $WLFI and $USD1 purchases, there is also an obvious concern that some $WLFI and $USD1 purchases might be thinly disguised bribes. There are some indications that this is already happening.

    • In March 2023 the Securities and Exchange Commission sued Chinese businessman Justin Sun (Tron Foundation, BitTorrent Foundation, and Rainberry), alleging that Sun sold unregistered securities related to the sale and promotion of Tron (TRX) and BitTorrent (BTT) tokens. The suit also alleged that Sun and his companies engaged in fraudulent trades designed to artificially increase the price of TRX.
      From late 2024 to February 2025 Sun purchased $WLFI tokens with a total value of approximately $75 million.
      In late February 2025 the SEC dropped its lawsuit against Sun.

    • In early 2025 Abu Dhabi-state backed company MGX, led by Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the Abu Dhabi royal family and National Security Advisor of the United Arab Emirates, announced its intent to purchase $2 billion USD1 to finance the purchase of problematic crypto exchange Binance. Binance had pleaded guilty to violating the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, which is intended to prevent money laundering. Binance founder Changpeng Zhao also pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months in prison.
      The Trump administration subsequently approved shipment of advanced computer chips that were under export restrictions to another of Tahnoun's companies, despite concerns that the chips might subsequently be shipped to the People's Republic of China.
      In October 2025 Donald Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao.

Socialism (or is it "Crony Capitalism"?)

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.

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 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)

Incompetence

The various problems with reflecting pool on the National Mall immediately following the Trump Administration's recent renovation project are the latest 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.

Incompetence at War

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.

Five 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 the 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 blocked shipping traffic through the Strait.
    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. A 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.

Domestic Incompetence

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 30 July 2371 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.

Laughable(?) Incompetence

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.

5. The two-party "system" is broken, and probably irreparably.

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)


5.1. What's wrong with the Republican Party

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.

5.2. What's wrong with the Democratic Party

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 unwilling 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, 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.

What we think the Democratic Party should do if it wants to win this year's elections

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. They might start with some planks based on 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.

5.3. Problems both parties should address

National Debt

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 $1.8 trillion, roughly the same as the deficit for all of 2025. It's likely to exceed $2 trillion by the end of the 2026 fiscal year - 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.

Social Security

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.

The broken weapons procurement system, and the declining defense industrial base

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.

We will use the continuing shrinkage of the US Navy to better illustrate these problems. As we noted they are not confined to the Navy, but we're more familiar with naval issues than with the problems of the other services.

Most don’t think much about the state of US Navy. They just assume that it is there, and that it is the best in the world.

We watch naval affairs much more closely than most people, so we're often aware of problems that are overlooked by the general public.
One such problem is the US has been building naval ships at far below replacement rate for decades. The low shipbuilding rate is exacerbated by the Navy's alarming maintenance backlog for existing ships.
This has compelled the Navy to extended the lives of existing ships beyond the normal limits simply because their replacements keep not showing up.
This is unsustainable, and we are well past the crisis point.

The end result the Navy continues to gradually shrink. As of 20 August 2026 the Naval Vessels Register shows just 289 total ships in the US Navy's battle force, with 239 classified as commissioned and active.
Even the these figures are somewhat optimistic: Both include 27 of the nearly useless Littoral Combat Ships, and 7 elderly (though still respectably powerful) Ticonderoga (CG-47) class cruisers, though these are steadily being retired without replacement. The "commissioned" number also includes the historical ships USS Constitution and USS Pueblo, which are technically are still commissioned U.S. Navy ships.

Since 2018 the Navy's stated goal is to build a 355 ship battle force, and the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress made this official U.S. policy. But the current size of the Navy's battle force is not only well below this goal; it's still heading in the wrong direction. In January 2021 the Navy's battle force had 297 ships, with 253 "commissioned and active"; in January 2004 it had 276 "commissioned and active".

For comparison by 2024 China's navy had 370 ships in its battle force, including 140 major surface warships and 60 attack submarines. These numbers are steadily growing.

Help is not on the way.

  • Completion of the Ford (CVN-78) class carriers John F. Kennedy, Enterprise, and Doris Miller has been delayed again, to 2027, 2031, and 2034 respectively.

  • The Navy cancelled the planned construction of four (out of six planned) Constellation (FFG-62) class guided missile frigates on 25 November 2025. Of the remaining two, completion of Constellation has been delayed until 2029; construction of Congress has not even started.

    The announcement stated that the cancellation was for the Navy’s convenience rather than some failure by the builder. The Navy also said it hoped to replace it with a ship that can be build more quickly. This is notable, because the Navy had chosen the Constellation design in 2019 because it was based on an existing design that could be build quickly. We'll also observe that it was intended to replace the ill conceived Littoral Combat Ships, the Navy's previous attempt to acquire lower cost ships that could be built rapidly.

    In December 2025 the Navy announced that the cancelled frigates would be replaced by a new design based on the US Coast Guard's existing Legend class cutters.
    We're not confident that this new "off the shelf" frigate design will work out any better than the last two. The Navy seems to be doing the same things it's already done, and expecting the results will somehow be different.

  • Construction of the planned DDG(X) destroyer class that is intended to replace the Ticonceroga (CG-47) class cruisers and early Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyers that are now reaching the end of their useful lives is not expected to begin until the early 2030s. To make matters worse, they might be further delayed to prioritize the Trump administration's questionable "battleship" project.

Given the various crises in the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, South China Sea, and other areas, we need to recognize that when we need a navy, we can’t just order one from Amazon.

Building ships is time consuming, even when we have good ship designs. This is exacerbated by the lack of suitable domestic shipyards: There is now only one shipyard in the USA capable of building nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and only two capable of building nuclear powered submarines; and there are only a handful that can build smaller warships. Skilled labor is also essential, and too often it's in short supply.

Congress deserves a share of the blame for this. Congress normally allocates funds for shipbuilding annually, and priorities can (and too often do) change frequently. Privately owned shipyards can hardly be blamed for being reluctant to make expensive investments to increase shipbuilding capacity when the Navy's demand is so uncertain.

The Navy deserves a share of the blame too. Too often it issues ship specifications that are unrealistic; and too often it changes a ship's specifications while it is already under construction. This contributed to the failure of several recent warship projects: The Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers; the Constellation (FFG-62) class frigates; and both Littoral Combat Ship (LCS-1 and LCS-2) classes.

At a minimum Congress should provide funding 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.

5.4. A way to repair the broken parties?

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.)

5.5. Alternatives to the Democratic and Republican Parties?

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.

6. So who should you vote for?

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.)

6.1. How we intend to make our choices in November

We will be governed by a few simple principles in this election:

7. The role of the news media, and how it's getting it wrong.

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. This 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."

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:

  1. Do nothing I cannot defend.

  2. Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.

  3. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.

  4. Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and good a person as I am.

  5. Assume the same about all people on whom I report.

  6. Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.

  7. Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label everything.

  8. Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should be allowed to attack another anonymously.

  9. “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.

8. An Appeal for Civility

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.

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.