Politics

Authored by Clay Routledge via RealClearPolitics,

In the middle of a Trump transition, the “Resistance 2.0,” and the inevitable partisan mud-slinging, it is easy to lose faith in humanity’s future. Polls show growing pessimism about everything from democracy to economic mobility to climate change.

Yet the major challenges we face demand something different from us: a progress mindset. 

Our team at Archbridge Institute’s Human Flourishing Lab recently launched Progress Pulse, a new research initiative to study the attitudes, knowledge, motives, and goals that individuals hold regarding progress. In our first Progress Pulse survey, the results from over 2,000 U.S. adults reveal a stark divide: 52% believe we will make significant progress and create a better world for future generations, while 48% expect failure and decline.

Particularly concerning is our finding that young Americans are the most cynical about the future. Among adults aged 18 to 34, only 47% believe life will be better for future generations, while 53% expect decline. This drops to 42% when looking specifically at Gen Z (adults under 28). In other words, nearly 60% of Gen Z believes we will fail to improve the world and that life will be worse in the future. This stands in stark contrast to older Americans: Among those 65 and older, 60% believe in a better future, with only 40% expecting decline. 

This generational divide should worry us all, given that young adults will be at the forefront of solving tomorrow’s challenges. We cannot afford for them to have a negative outlook.

Some might argue that negativity is actually needed to drive progress. I frequently come across the view that positive feelings – from happiness to hope – are signs of people putting their heads in the sand or living blissfully unaware. The slogan, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention,” captures the sentiment that negative feelings are necessary for driving change.

But this view fundamentally misunderstands human psychology. Negative feelings such as anxiety often make us more psychologically defensive. While this can be useful when we need to protect ourselves from immediate physical, social, or financial threats, it also orients us away from the creative, innovative thinking and action that progress requires. For instance, research finds that the more anxious people are, the less likely they are to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Whether we are building businesses, families, friendships, or the broader institutions that advance civilization, negative thoughts and feelings are barriers to success.

Positive mental states, not negative ones, tend to push us outward toward solving problems and improving the world. This is because positive emotions promote a more expansive mindset, leading to greater willingness to take risks and explore new possibilities, which is crucial for addressing complex societal challenges. 

Take hope, for example. Hope is a positive and action-oriented mental state. Behavioral sciences research shows that when people are hopeful, they have a firm confidence in themselves and an unwavering belief that they will attain positive change in their lives. This allows them to persist through adversity. Hopeful people are flexible in finding effective paths toward their goals and can quickly adjust their approach when they encounter obstacles. Hopeful individuals are also more motivated to want to improve the world and they show greater creativity and tolerance for different perspectives – essential qualities for addressing the major challenges of our time.

The good news? Hope is contagious. Hopeful individuals inspire others to adopt more positive and action-oriented mindsets. They create ripple effects of positive change in their communities and organizations.

Right now, we need hope to spread. Our public discourse is saturated with negativity. Research finds that a growing proportion of news headlines convey anger, fear, disgust, and sadness. And we are part of the problem: Research also shows that when individuals engage with news online, they give more clicks to negative headlines. All of this is taking a toll on our nation’s psyche. 

As we confront the challenges of our time, we face a choice: Succumb to negativity or embrace a progress mindset. The evidence is clear – if we want to solve big problems and create a better future, we need to adopt a positive outlook.

The future remains unwritten. The challenges we face are real, but so is our capacity to overcome them. The first step is believing we can.

Clay Routledge is vice president of Research and director of the Human Flourishing Lab at the Archbridge Institute.

Authored by Kenin Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

It’s time to defrock the word police.

The election, polls, and anecdotal evidence confirm that Americans want to end the obnoxious recitation of pronouns – “Latinx,” “birthing persons,” and other entries in the radical left lexicon – except in eulogies for progressive virtue signaling.

In a March Gallup poll of more than 12 million adults, 4.4% identified as bisexual, 0.9% as transgender, and 0.1% as pansexual. In exit polls this year of more than 110,000 voters conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago, just 1% identified as “nonbinary,” a subset of the Gallup categories. Some of these individuals, most often nonbinaries, dominate use of non-standard pronouns such as “they,” “zir” and “hir.”

If 100% of bisexuals, transgenders, and pansexuals used non-standard pronouns (they do not) and all are offended if the remaining 94.6% of us do not publicly proclaim our pronouns in our signature cards and profiles (also untrue), then the pronoun kerfuffle risks offending 5.4% of Americans. From 10 to 20 times more Americans are offended by this babble. According to a Pew study published in June, nearly 56% of registered voters are uncomfortable with someone using the pronouns “they” or “them,” rather than “he” or “she.” Most of the 53% of Americans who consider religion to be “very important” in their lives likely agree.

Even in Canada, where polls show greater support for gender fluidity, a survey of 3,016 adults from the Angus-Reid Institute found that 66% opposed (36% strongly) and just 22% supported (6% strongly) that “everyone should put their pronouns in their social media profiles/emails.” Media savvy squad member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez deleted her pronouns from her X profile.

The core question is not whether those who choose non-standard pronouns, other than “they,” should be dissuaded from doing so, but whether we must all subjugate ourselves to pronoun activists by beclowning our signature cards and profiles to confirm that we are adhering to at least 2,000 years of gender identification, and whether we must adopt idiosyncratic pronouns when describing others.

At the least, no one should use the pronoun “they.” The use of “they” to describe an individual is grammatically incorrect in nearly all circumstances. It is narcissistic and pompous. When discussing multiple people and also using “they” as a pronoun for one or more of them, the result is indecipherable. (Try to understand the sentence I just wrote if the word “them” could mean both more than one individual, and one or more specific individuals.)

More than a few times I have had the following conversation with a professional whose firm uses pronouns in its signature cards. Me: Does anyone in the firm use pronouns other than him or her? Partner: “No” (or, rarely, “a few”). Me: Why then do you do this, since it must be off-putting to many more people than the number who like it? Partner: Some variation of, “We only care about the feelings of the few.”

This goes even further when people are penalized for refusing to participate in this farce. Being LGBTQ may be protected by law or common decency, but the Constitution unambiguously protects free speech and the exercise of religion. It does not protect an individual’s right to force others to refer to him or her as a “they.” At least 10 states have passed legislation to ensure that teachers, staff, and students aren’t required to use students’ pronouns or names if they don’t align with the student’s sex at birth.

Nothing, of course, is more absurd that the misogynistic “birthing person,” or that a nominee for the Supreme Court can’t define “woman.”

U.S. passport applicants now may select any gender, or an “X” gender, as may residents of 16 states on birth certificates, and at least 25 states and the District of Columbia on drivers’ licenses and other identification, defeating the purpose of identification.

French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish assign gender to most nouns. Hence, Americans from South America refer to themselves as “Latino,” “Latina,” or just “Hispanic.” The same misogynistic pathology that causes progressives to insist there are more than two immutable sexes, erase women, and put biological males in girls’ sports, drives them to the despised slur “Latinx.”

A 2021 poll of 800 registered voters of Latin American descent for Bendixen and Amandi International, a Democratic firm, found that only 2% described themselves as Latinx, and 40% found the term offensive. A Pew survey in September found that only 4% of Hispanics use it, 51% have never heard of it, and 75% of those who have, oppose it. In October, a study conducted by professors from Georgetown and Harvard found that the use of Latinx by Democrats was increasing Hispanic support for Donald Trump and other Republicans.

The progressive lexicon is based on tenuous connections (“grandfathered” is racist), wordy (“people experiencing homelessness” for “homeless”), kooky (“assigned female at birth” for “girl”) and offends vast number of Americans, including women and members of minority groups whom the progressives claim to be supporting.

According to Future Forward, Kamala Harris’ lead PAC, variants of Trump’s campaign advertisement about her support for taxpayer-funded sex reassignment surgery for transgenders with the tagline “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” shifted the race 2.7% in Trump’s favor.

Trump’s success among most demographic groups, and exit and post-election polling (see here, here, here, and here) tell us that Americans don’t want to be told by the radical left what to think or how to speak about social issues. It is time to put pronouns, Latinx, and other progressive terminology in the waste basket.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio, and podcasts.

South Korea’s Constitutional Court began reviewing President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment on Saturday, following a National Assembly vote that led to it. Yoon was scheduled for questioning on Sunday as part of a prosecutors’ office investigation, but he has not responded. Meanwhile, the leader of his party, who had supported the impeachment, has resigned.

NBC News reports the prosecutors’ office asked Yoon to appear for questioning on Sunday as part of an investigation over his failed attempt to declare emergency martial law earlier this month. Prosecutors will issue another summons for the president. 

On Saturday, the National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon, with 204 lawmakers in the 300-member house in favor of the motion and 85 against. Eight votes were declared invalid, while three lawmakers abstained from voting.

The vote comes a little more than a week after Yoon survived an impeachment vote, capping multi-week political turmoil in the country that borders North Korea. This follows Yoon’s declaration of the briefest martial law in South Korean history on December 3, lasting only a few hours, after accusing the opposition party of engaging in ‘anti-state activities.’

Recall, Yoon said: “I will not give up. I will do my best for our country.” And this could be why he failed to appear for questioning on Sunday.

“If Yoon continues to defy requests for questioning in the two inquiries, investigators could ask a court to issue a warrant for his arrest,” NBC noted. 

Under South Korea’s Constitution, Yoon’s impeachment has allowed Prime Minister Han Duck-soo to become interim leader.

Political instability in South Korea led to the resignation of Han Dong Hoon, the leader of Yoon’s People Power Party, on Monday morning. 

Han said he does “not regret supporting the impeachment” because the president’s use of martial law was wrong. 

“Defending illegal martial law is a betrayal of the country, the people, the conservative spirit, and the achievements of our party that achieved industrialization and democratization,” Han emphasized. 

Given that the Constitutional Court will now decide whether to reinstate or remove Yoon, Goldman’s Goohoon Kwon and Andrew Tilton provided clients with the possible transition scenarios. That process could take up to six months.

Here’s what comes next: 

Newsquawk’s latest headlines on the ongoing political turmoil: 

• South Korean MPs have successfully voted to impeach President Yoon in their second attempt, amid backlash following his brief move to impose martial law, according to BBC. Yoon was suspended from official duties at 19:24 local time on Saturday while PM Han is to continue as acting president, according to Yonhap.

• South Korea’s acting president Han vowed to leave no vacuum in state affairs, build a solid security posture, and ensure the cabinet works hard to maintain trust with the US, Japan, and other partners. He also pledged efforts to operate financial and forex markets smoothly, according to Yonhap. Acting President Han said the country will maintain preparedness to prevent North Korea from stirring up provocations, secure national interests ahead of the new US administration, and prioritise national security above all else, according to News1 and Yonhap.

• South Korea’s opposition leader Lee Jae-myung said the party has decided not to proceed with the impeachment of acting , according to Reuters.

• Bank of Korea stated it is necessary to respond more actively to the economic impact compared with past impeachment periods, given heightened challenges in external conditions. It also said it will use all available policy instruments, in conjunction with the government, to respond to and avert escalation of volatility in financial and forex markets, according to Reuters.

• South Korea’s Finance Minister said the government will continue to swiftly deploy market-stabilising measures as needed, seek more support measures for vulnerable sectors, and actively communicate with parliament to keep the economy stable. The minister also confirmed that the bi-annual economic policy plan will be announced before the end of the year, according to Reuters.

• South Korea’s financial regulator said it will expand market-stabilising funds if needed to boost liquidity in bond and short-term money markets and expects financial markets to stabilise as recent political events are temporary shocks, according to Reuters.

Also, the Goldman analysts warned of another scenario that could unfold: “… muddling through in a political gridlock.” 

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro Mayorkas, provided an update Sunday on a rash of apparent drone sightings in the New Jersey region, saying the federal government will take action to address concerns but signaled that officials don’t have the authority to shoot them down.

Over the past several weeks, residents and local officials have reported drones flying over New Jersey, drawing intense speculation and scrutiny in the past week. Some federal lawmakers have called on the drones to be shot down or captured, while federal officials have not disclosed the source of the unmanned aerial vehicles.

“There’s no question that people are seeing drones,” Mayorkas told ABC News’ “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning. “I want to assure the American public that we in the federal government have deployed additional resources, personnel, technology to assist the New Jersey State Police in addressing the drone sightings.”

Mayorkas added that the sightings are “in fact” of drones, but some are “manned aircraft that are commonly mistaken for drones,” echoing previous statements made by the FBI, DHS, and the White House. He did not provide further details.

“But there’s no question that drones are being sighted,” the secretary said, adding that there are “thousands” of drones that are flown every day in the United States, including commercial and recreational vehicles. He also pointed out that in September 2023, the Federal Aviation Administration changed federal rules that allow drones to fly in the evening.

“I want to assure the American public that we are on it. We are working in close coordination with state and local authorities,” Mayorkas said. “And it is critical, as we all have said for a number of years that we need from Congress additional authorities to address the drone situation. Our authorities currently are limited, and they are set to expire. We need them extended and expanded.”

Elaborating, he called on Congress to allow state and local officials to have broader latitude in dealing with drones “under federal supervision.”

When asked by Stephanopoulos about whether the drones should be shot down, as suggested by President-elect Donald Trump in a social media post over the weekend, Mayorkas signaled that the U.S. government has limited capacity in that regard.

Several local New Jersey elected officials, including Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), said in a Saturday news conference that that government should take down the drones and have them inspected by federal officials. “Why can’t we bag at least one drone and get to the bottom of this?” Smith asked.

Mayorkas said Sunday that the U.S. government is “limited in our authorities” in taking down a drone, noting that there are more than 8,000 drones being flown each day across the country.

“We have certain agencies within the Department of Homeland Security that can do that, and outside our department,” he added, “but we need those authorities expanded as well.”

The Homeland Security secretary then stressed that U.S. officials have not seen evidence that the drones are being operated by a foreign adversary, echoing statements made by the White House and FBI. He also suggested that the drones have not been flown over any sensitive or restricted areas.

“When a drone is flown over restricted air space, we act very, very swiftly,” said Mayorkas, who is due to leave office on Jan. 20, 2025. “And, in fact, when an individual in California flew a drone over restricted air space, that individual was identified, apprehended, and is being charged by federal authorities. And so we act as swiftly as possible when an individual does fly a drone over restricted air space and violates the rules.”

He was making reference to an incident earlier this month in which a Chinese national living in the United States was flying a drone near Vandenburg Air Force Base in Southern California.

The suspect, Yinpiao Zhou, was arrested at the San Francisco International Airport right before he was set to board a flight back to China on Dec. 9, officials have said.

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

Let me start by saying I loathe politics. I’ve always been drawn to liberal ideas—individual freedom, protecting the vulnerable, questioning authority, and the fundamental belief that consenting adults should be free to live their lives however they choose as long as they’re not harming others. These aren’t political positions to me; they’re basic human principles. But the game of politics itself repulses me. What I’m about to share isn’t about politics; it’s about our shared reality and how we’ve lost touch with it.

The Mindvirus

What’s truly mind-numbing to me is how people don’t see what’s happening right in front of them. The media has devolved into nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the establishment, programming people to react rather than think. I’ve experienced this firsthand: When I drew historical comparisons between vaccine mandates and 1933 Germany’s early authoritarian policies, I was instantly labeled an extremist and cancelled by my NYC community. Yet now, these same people casually call everyone at Trump’s MSG rally Nazis. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

My Liberal Foundation

I still believe deeply in core liberal principles:

• Genuine free speech, not the controlled corporate version we see today
• Standing against establishment overreach
• Opposing unchecked corporate power
• Fighting against unnecessary wars
• Complete bodily autonomy – your body, your choice, in ALL contexts
• Defending individual rights consistently, not selectively

These aren’t just political positions—they’re principles about human dignity and freedom.

The Democratic Party’s Transformation

The Democratic Party’s drift from these values didn’t happen overnight. Many of us, exhausted by Bush’s brutal wars, lies about weapons of mass destruction, and the Patriot Act’s assault on civil liberties, invested our hopes in Obama’s promise of change. But instead of the transformation we sought, we got what felt like Bush’s third and fourth terms.

Under Obama, we watched as corporate influence grew stronger, not weaker. The Snowden revelations exposed massive surveillance programs. The housing crisis devastated ordinary Americans while Wall Street got bailouts. Rather than challenging institutional power, the Democratic establishment became increasingly entangled with it.

The betrayal of liberal values became even clearer with Bernie Sanders. Like Trump, Bernie tapped into something real—a deep frustration with a system that had left ordinary Americans behind. Both men, from vastly different perspectives, recognized that working people were suffering while elites prospered. But the Democratic establishment couldn’t allow an actual progressive challenger. They used every trick in the book—from media manipulation to primary shenanigans—to block him from the nomination. Most disappointing was watching Bernie himself bend the knee to the same establishment he had railed against, leaving millions of supporters feeling betrayed and politically homeless.

When Hillary Clinton emerged as the nominee, we were told rejecting her meant rejecting women’s leadership. But we weren’t rejecting female leadership—we were rejecting warmongering and corporate cronyism. What we needed was a leader embodying the feminine divine: qualities of compassion, understanding, nurturing wisdom, and the ability to truly listen. Instead, we got another hawk in the corporate establishment’s pocket. And when that failed, they doubled down on cynical identity politics with Harris.

Today, the situation relating to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. perfectly exemplifies how far the party has fallen. Here was a lifelong Democrat, a member of the party’s most popular family, who wanted to challenge these corrupting influences—and they wouldn’t even let him on the debate stage. I firmly believe that had they given him the opportunity, he could have united the country and beaten Trump.

But that reveals the truth: this was never about beating Trump. It was about ensuring they maintained control by installing another establishment stooge who wouldn’t challenge their power structure. His departure from the party isn’t just about one candidate; it’s the culmination of a long betrayal of liberal principles.

The Politics of Distraction vs. Real Issues

Take abortion rights. This is an incredibly nuanced issue with deeply held convictions on all sides. I’ve spoken with several constitutional lawyers who’ve explained that overturning Roe was legally sound—not a political decision but a constitutional one about federal versus state authority. That makes it even more telling that Democrats, when they had a supermajority, chose not to codify these protections into federal law. Instead, they’ve kept this issue unresolved, using it as a reliable tool to drive voter turnout every four years.

While abortion access matters deeply to many Americans, we’re facing multiple crises that threaten the very foundation of our republic: inflation is crushing working families while Wall Street posts record profits; government surveillance of citizens has reached dystopian levels; and our regulatory agencies—the FDA and CDC—have been completely captured by corporate interests, approving one toxic product after another while our children are being poisoned by processed foods, environmental toxins, and experimental drugs.

The climate crisis (or what some see as deliberate geoengineering) threatens our very survival. Our border is in complete chaos—while we send billions to foreign conflicts most Americans barely understand. All this while our own infrastructure crumbles and our nation grows more divided than ever.

The hypocrisy around women’s rights is particularly telling. The same party that claims to champion women’s bodily autonomy pushed for mandatory experimental medical interventions, despite documented evidence of mRNA vaccines affecting women’s reproductive cycles and fertility. These effects were known from early trials, yet raising concerns got you labeled as “anti-science.” Meanwhile, they’ve insisted that biological males have access to women’s spaces—including locker rooms, bathrooms, and sports competitions—prioritizing fashionable ideologies over women’s safety and fair competition.

The Democrats permanently lost any moral authority on bodily autonomy the moment they advocated for mandatory medical procedures—yet they continue to lecture us about it without a hint of self-awareness. Liberal principles aren’t a Chinese menu where you get to pick and choose which freedoms matter.

Take Kamala Harris—she literally campaigned on “My body, my choice” while simultaneously mandating experimental Covid shots for her own campaign staff. You can’t claim to champion bodily autonomy in one breath and deny it in the next based on political convenience. Either you believe in individual liberty and bodily autonomy, or you don’t. There’s no à la carte option when it comes to fundamental human rights.

The Corporate-State Fusion

What we’re seeing today aligns disturbingly well with Mussolini’s definition of fascism: the merger of state and corporate power. Look at Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum promoting “stakeholder capitalism,” where corporations and governments form partnerships to control various aspects of society. The WEF’s corporate membership reads like a who’s who of Democratic Party megadonors: BlackRock, which donated millions to Biden’s campaign while pushing ESG policies that benefit their bottom line; Pfizer, which poured over $10 million into Democratic coffers while securing massive government contracts; Google and Meta, which not only donate heavily but actively suppress information challenging Democratic narratives.

This isn’t a coincidence; it’s coordination. These same companies shape policy that enriches them: BlackRock advises on financial policy while managing government assets, Pfizer helps write drug approval guidelines while selling mandatory vaccines, and Big Tech collaborates with federal agencies to control information flow. We saw this play out in real time: from day one of the Biden administration, they created backdoor channels into social media companies to censor Americans’ speech about Covid, the 2020 election, and other sensitive topics.

This isn’t a theory—it’s documented fact. Every major policy decision seems to benefit these corporate partners: vaccine mandates, digital currency initiatives, censorship programs, climate policies—all funneling money and power to the same corporations that fund the Democratic machine. When corporations and government work together to control information and behavior, that’s precisely the corporate-state fusion that classical liberals once fought against. The Democratic Party has become the party of corporate fascism while claiming to fight against it.

The Democratic Facade

The current administration embodies everything wrong with our system. Look at Kamala Harris—she dropped out of the 2020 presidential race before any primary, polling below 1%. Biden then selected her solely because he limited his pool to black women—not because of her qualifications, but because of identity politics. Her record as Senator was abysmal—she sponsored zero significant legislation and missed 84% of votes during her brief tenure. Then as Vice President, her role as border czar has been an unprecedented disaster—one the administration now tries to pretend never happened.

And here’s the ultimate irony: this is the party screaming loudest about “threats to democracy,” yet they literally installed Harris as their candidate when nobody voted for her—she dropped out before a single primary vote was cast due to dismal polling. They wouldn’t even let their own members participate in primary debates. They’re lecturing us about democracy while actively suppressing democratic processes within their own party. When they say “democracy is on the ballot,” what they really mean is their controlled version of democracy where they pick the candidates and we’re supposed to fall in line.

Nobody voted for her, and honestly, nobody really likes her—they just hate Trump more. They could prop up a steaming pile of manure as a candidate, and people would vote for it just to vote against Trump. But here’s the real question: If Trump is truly the democracy-ending threat they claim, why didn’t democracy end during his first term? And if Harris is the solution to our problems, why hasn’t she fixed anything while in office?

The Trump Enigma

My view on Trump has evolved, though not in the way many might expect. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020. Growing up in this region, I knew him only as a second-generation real estate developer—Woody Guthrie had written those critical lyrics about his father, “Old Man Trump.” At the time, I thought Donald was just another entitled heir who happened to opportunistically tap into something real. 

But there’s so much more to this story. His connections to secret societies and the occult run surprisingly deep. His Trump Tower penthouse is essentially a Masonic temple, designed as a replica of Versailles with deliberate esoteric symbolism throughout. His mentor was a 33° Scottish Rite, and Roy Cohn’—master of blackmail and dark arts—shaped his early career. Most intriguingly, his uncle John Trump was the MIT scientist tasked with reviewing Nikola Tesla’s papers after his death—papers that allegedly contained world-changing technologies, from free energy to more exotic possibilities. I don’t know what it all means, but there’s clearly more to this story than the “orange man bad” narrative we’re fed.

At this point, I see only three possibilities:

1. He’s playing his part in a grand political wrestling match (WWF style)
2. He’s a dueling bad guy (genuinely a thorn in the establishment’s side)
3. He’s actually the hero of this story (which would be the most hilarious plot twist imaginable from the vantage point of someone like me)

The Path Forward

Candidly, I don’t know and at this point, any of these seem plausible. What I do know is what the blue team represents—their actions have made that crystal clear. But Trump remains a bit of a mystery to me. I have a hard time believing any politician could be our savior—real change has always come from the bottom up, not the top down. But something interesting happened that gave me a glimmer of hope: RFK, Jr. jumping on board.

The RFK, Jr. situation is fascinating. Here’s a Kennedy—essentially Democratic royalty—teaming up with Trump after being shut out by his own party. This isn’t just any political alliance. RFK, Jr.’s deep understanding of the administrative state, from public health institutions to regulatory agencies, combined with his proven track record of exposing corporate capture and fighting pharmaceutical corruption, makes this particularly intriguing. Maybe, just maybe, this alliance could protect our children from harmful policies and unnecessary wars?

I struggle with what comes next because I understand the gravity of our situation. Our republic is incredibly fragile—more fragile than most people realize. The Founders knew this, warning us about the difficulty of maintaining a democratic republic. But I refuse to give up on dialogue, even when it feels hopeless. If people don’t see what’s happening by now—the censorship, the mandates, the war-mongering, what appears to be intentional schismogenesis (I wrote about this idea here)—will they ever?

The powers that profit from our division; they’ve mastered the art of keeping us fighting each other so we don’t look up to see who’s really pulling the strings. These aren’t just political issues—they’re existential challenges that require reasonable people to discuss complex solutions. Your neighbor who voted differently isn’t your enemy—they likely want many of the same things you do: safety, prosperity, freedom, and a better future for their children. They might just have different ideas about how to get there.

I know this is heavy stuff. You might disagree with everything I’ve said, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is letting these disagreements destroy our relationships and communities. The choice isn’t just about who we vote for—it’s about how we treat each other, how we discuss our differences, and whether we can find common ground in our shared humanity.

The way forward isn’t through hatred or fear. It’s through understanding, open dialogue, and most importantly, love. We might be living through the death throes of the American experiment, or we might be witnessing its rebirth. Either way, we’re in this together, and our strength lies in our ability to work through these challenges as a community, as neighbors, and as friends. Let’s choose wisdom over reaction, understanding over judgment, and love over fear. Our future depends on it.

Republished from the author’s Substack