First, let me say that while I criticize Heath, I think it’s important to recognize that what he is trying to do is very difficult, and he should be commended on the things he has done well, like organizing and building professional relationships within the sphere of power. I do not believe Heath is a grifter; I just don’t think he has surrounded himself with the right people.

Having said that, his organization is doomed to failure unless something changes fast. Heath's defense to criticism is that his organization is all volunteer. However, he doesn’t address the elephant in the room.

What is the point of Principles First?

Principles First recruited me to their conference several years ago, told me the house was on fire, and instead of asking me for help putting out the fire they asked me to sit down and listen to Heath give a 15-minute speech on Principles. Successful political movements organize discontent, and since 2020, there has been a lot of discontent out there. Yet from the first conference I attended to the 2025 conference, I have listened to a lot of talk and seen very little action. I wanted to help, but I wasn’t given anything to do.

Meanwhile, the person they told me started the fire, Donald Trump, won the presidency again. From what I can see, Principles First did very little to stop him other than support a rapidly aging democratic incumbent. It’s great that they have an all-volunteer staff, but what does that matter?

It’s not too late, though. If Heath leaned into his positive skills and found others to compliment him, Priciples First could have a big impact in 2026. Trump’s favorability is dropping fast, and the amount of discontent to be organized is higher than normal. Principles First could capitalize by putting an actionable plan together that includes fundraising, messaging, and candidate recruitment.

Instead of pitching an anti-Trump message, they should pivot to a pro-solutions message. The rule of law and the constitution are under attack. Great, what are we doing about it? The solution is congressional reform.

Additionally, they need to recognize the reason for Trump’s rise. He is in power because others failed. Americans want solutions for immigration, energy, housing, and the national debt. What is Priciples First going to do about these issues?

As Mark Hanna said, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.” Principles first needs to fundraise and then invest in candidates who have the right message for their constituents. They should take a page out of the Reagan Caucus playbook and focus on primary races for the lower chamber. We need better leaders in the House of Representatives, and Principles first could make that happen.

By sharing the stage and recruiting talent, Heath and Principles First would increase their political power. And giving followers more to do would increase productivity and the organization’s footprint. Just because you're down doesn’t mean you're out. Sometimes, you just have to reflect and adjust.

If you are someone who feels left out of the Principles First movement, check out Uncap The House Space from last night on X. If you like it, reach out, we will give you something to do.

Peace and Love,

Jeff Mayhugh

The spat started when @TheRealBeliveau quote tweeted @HeathMayo.

Let me start by giving you some context. First, I know both of these individuals in different limited capacities. I follow André because he knows a lot about energy policy, and I follow Heath because he is the founder of Principles First. I follow both of them because they are conservatives, well, kind of, and therein lies the beef.

As many of you know, I am a regular at Principles First conferences. As a conservative who wanted an alternative to Trump, I was excited when Principles First started. Heath spoke about important things like institutions and the rule of law, which I appreciated. However, over the years, the organization has become more anti-trump than anything else. It’s also drifted left, aligning closely with the “conservative” outlet Bulwark, which most people would admit is not really conservative.

So what’s the big deal that Heath campaigned with Harris? Why does André have a problem with Heath talking about conservative economic policy?

The problem is that Heath, in an attempt to extend his political sphere and build a larger coalition, has alienated his base. It is a classic political blunder, but it is recoverable. He pitched himself as a conservative alternative to Trump, but everywhere you look, the conservative parts are leaving, and the anti-trump parts are emphasized.

At the 2024 Principles First Conference, it was pretty clear to me that the organization had already made a deal with the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the Republican primary was still going on, and Nikki Haley, while a long shot, was still a candidate—a much more conservative candidate.

I was disappointed the organization didn’t do more to help a republican defeat Trump. They had four years to find and back a candidate to defeat Trump in the primary, but they kind of just sat back and waited until Trump got the nomination. My guess is André feels the same, although I am speculating based on the tweets I read.

Since then, Principle Firsters Adam Kinzinger and Geoff Duncan, among others, spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Kyle Sweetser tweeted, “It’s time to become a Democrat.” and Health has said, “The goal is not to save the Republican Party. The Republican Party has made its choice. The goal is to save the country.” At the same time, removing the word conservative from his X bio.

Just because Health and Principles First has been welcomed into the Democratic Party doesn’t mean he can’t be a conservative. In fact, it would be a politically savvy move to create a conservative faction inside the democracy party. The problem is that while pitching himself as a conservative, he was, as André alluded to in the spat, running cover for Democrats. He should have been more upfront.

I get it; it’s politics. You have to have power to make a difference. I don’t blame Heath; no path to power is ever easy. It appears, though, that he is a Democrat first and a conservative second. If he can’t admit that, then he is going to have a hard time debating in conservative circles.

If he wants to get his base back, he should come clean and explain his choices. If he does, he could expand his political sphere even more. Or maybe conservatives were never his base, and he is okay with letting us go.

Peace and Love,

Jeff Mayhugh

You would think that attendees at Principles First would have had enough of brash billionaires, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The mentality seems to be that the other side needs their own. Fight fire with fire.

During his interview, Cuban resembled Donald Trump in many ways. He dominated the interview, sometimes not letting the question get out, then rambling, dropping a curse word here and there, and rarely answering them. Trump’s favorite subject when he started campaigning was immigration, Cuban preferred to steer the conversation to Health Care. It didn’t matter that he spoke a lot and said little of consequence; people loved it.

Through all of his rambling, he said some profound things. He dissected Trump’s success and the failure of the anti-Trump movement– saying Trump won because he could sell a plan, and the other side had no plan or salesmen. He showed good retail political skills when he explained the importance of crypto policy, telling an individual story about how crypto is the cheapest option for some people because bank fees are too high.

When Cuban was asked about running for office, he said “Hell no,” that he “doesn’t want to be President.” The crowd was disappointed, but I don’t think they have reason to be. I don’t think that was a hard no. It was an I haven’t really thought about it, no. “Are you hungry?” “Hell no, I just ate. Wait a minute, now that you mention it…”

At the end of the interview, they took questions from the crowd. The last question was from a former independent candidate. He started talking about the difficulties of running a campaign and the effects of money. He never got his question out before Cuban cut him off, saying there are different ways of doing it and then telling a story about his new venture, Cost-plus Drugs. Cuban’s advice, in part, was that candidates needed to be creative and should utilize social media.

When he spoke about his favorite topics, healthcare and Trump, he showed a deep understanding of the details, but when he spoke about issues independent candidates have and the impact of campaign finance, he deflected, showing he hadn’t thought much about the topic.

He told the crowd he hasn’t donated a dollar to campaigns in the last twenty years. As Mark Hanna famously said, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” Yes, Cuban could go on social media and get attention for a campaign just by tweeting, and millions would hear it. However, if most people did that, they would need to pay thousands of ad dollars for their neighbors to hear it.

So if Cuban isn’t going to donate money and he isn’t going to run for office? What is he going to do?

America has drifted so far apart we are just screaming past each other. Congress is inept and the executive is out of control. The incentives for office lead the most extreme to victory. If Cuban wanted to do something of consequence, he could use the power of his celebrity to move the needle in the right direction and help elect balanced candidates to the House in 2026.

He just needs to take his own advice and become the sales guy. He doesn’t have to sell himself, he could sell the qualified candidates whose voices are ignored in the current dysfunctional political environment.

Primary races are won on the ground, as Tip O’Niell said, "all politics is local." Candidates need small dollar donations, party engagement, local volunteers to door knock, and bring their friends and family to the polls.

Cuban could use his influence to rally support, attract funding, and amplify media coverage. His dynamic presence will energize volunteers, boost fundraising through high-profile events, and draw significant press attention.

Every time Cuban visits it will be a major local event. He could run the same playbook Trump ran, but instead of doing it for himself, he could help others. Most people feel unrepresented, leading to a silent majority that has turned their back on American politics. If Cuban does his homework and backs the right candidates, he could bring them back to the table and give hope for our future.

For maximum success, the candidates should have a plan for Cuban to sell. The plan should be solutions-oriented, optimistic, and palatable. It needs to include directions for volunteers on how to be involved in local party politics and how to engage voters.

Talking to regular people on the ground during House primary campaigns might change Cubans’ mind about running for President. It would also give him all the experience he needs to do the job, should he decide to run. Should he change his mind, he should play coy with the press until after the 2026 elections to maximize press coverage. Should his candidates win, Cuban would become the favorite to win office in 2028, and when he got to office he would have a lot of support in the House.

Helping elect a sane and competent middle ground for Congress could balance the conversation and pull the extremes together so we can stop screaming past each other and start debating solutions. America needs bold leaders who want to do something of consequence. The question becomes: Does Mark Cuban want to be that person?

Peace & Love,

Jeff Mayhugh

Thomas Jefferson once said, “We are all Federalists; we are all Republicans.” But today, many have forgotten what that means. Jefferson and our founders believed in a balance of power: the executive branch serves the people from the top, and the legislative branch represents the people from the bottom. Yet, in our time, both parties have drifted toward focusing power in the presidency, leaving Congress—the heart of representative government—an afterthought.

I am a Republican in the truest sense of the word: I believe in representative government that divides, separates, and balances power. A government where the diverse views of the people are refined and debated in the legislature, not decreed by executive fiat. Yet, as America has grown, we’ve strayed from the fundamentals of representation that made our republic strong.

Representation is most effective when leaders depend on the people of their district to be elected to office. They represent both the interests of the people and the interests of the county. However, when representatives depend on parties and donors for re-election, they stop representing the district and start representing the interests that fund their campaigns and the party that secures their power.

In 1929, the House of Representatives was capped at 435 members. Since then, our population has more than tripled, and the size of congressional districts has exploded. This growth has diluted representation, encouraged gerrymandering, and severed communication between citizens and their representatives.

Take Illinois, for example. Its congressional map is a patchwork of bizarre shapes, designed not for representation but for partisan gain. The result? Confusion, frustration, and a growing sense of alienation among voters. Many Americans don’t know who represents them—and the media doesn’t help, as its focus remains fixated on the presidency.

This is not how a representative republic is supposed to work. Representation is how we, the people, govern ourselves. It is through our representatives—not the president—that our voices are meant to be heard. Yet, as representation erodes, many feel the system is rigged and broken. This frustration feeds the rise of radical leaders and ideas that aim to control, not empower.

If we want to reclaim our power as citizens, we must shift our focus away from the presidency and back to representation. Look up your representative. Send them an email or give them a call. Ask them this simple question: Will you work to restore representation and return power to the people?

The change we need starts with us. Representation is not just a principle—it is our right.

Peace and Love,

Jeff Mayhugh

While political leaders push these radical ideas for popularity, the root problem remains: Americans are underrepresented. Power is concentrated in fewer hands, corruption spreads, and Congress continues to abdicate its authority. The real crisis isn't new agendas—it’s a broken system of representation.

Citizens don’t feel they have a say in what happens. The debt grows, the border is overrun, and power is pushed further and further away from average citizens. It’s a game of who you know and how much you can fundraise, and far too many Americans don’t know the right people or have time or money to compete for their attention. Representation is out of reach for a majority of Americans.

Freedom in our republic rests on representation—the power to have a say in the rules that govern us. Our voice in government is held in the democratically elected House of Representatives. But since 1929, that freedom has been limited as representation has been diluted. Gerrymandering serves party success over democracy, and executive authority grows unchecked as power slips away from Congress.

Today in The Hill, I discuss how population shifts from California to Texas could shock the nation and deepen divisions. If Texas goes blue, Trump may repeat his 2020 playbook—refusing to concede, launching legal challenges, pressuring state officials, and encouraging public disobedience. Some members of Congress might even object to certifying the election, and Trump could appeal to the Supreme Court.

Navigating this political turmoil requires understanding basic constitutional principles. At the heart of today’s challenges is the apportionment (or lack thereof) of representation in the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires a census every ten years to adjust the number of House seats based on population changes. Like the one we are seeing in Texas. Until 1911, the House expanded alongside population growth.

During the Constitutional Convention, representation was the most contentious issue, leading to the bicameral Congress and the Three-Fifths Compromise. The 14th Amendment expanded representation to former slaves, but immigration and urbanization in the Gilded Age revived apportionment debates. In 1920, urban populations surpassed rural populations for the first time, but Congress resisted change, fearing the rise of urban political power.

In 1921, the dramatic population shifts led to a heated debate about apportionment. Many members of the House already felt it was too large and were against increasing the number in 1890, 1900, and 1910. Some didn’t believe the 1920 census was accurate due to many American men serving in WWI. So, for the first time in history, Congress failed to fulfill its constitutionally delegated responsibility. The first bill was strangled in committee, and the Senate filibuster killed the second.

Reading through the apportionment debates of 1928 and 1929 is fascinating. They sound much like today's problems: a failure of Congress to act, a delegation of authority to a bureaucratic agency, a futile debate about “unnaturalized aliens” critiques of the “metropolitan press,” and polarization between the growing urban areas and rural America.

The debate on all sides of the issue was filled with passion. Members were prepared; there are references to George Washington at the Continental Convention and quotes from James Madison and Daniel Webster. Crucial questions emerged: Should representation be based on citizens only or all residents—including non-citizens? How many Representatives are too many? Why 435? How can the representation between large and small states and urban and rural areas be balanced? Should the power remain in Congress?

The debate ended in 1929. Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, capping the House at 435 seats, delegating constitutional authority to a bureaucratic agency, and counting all persons for apportionment, including undocumented immigrants. This decision, motivated by skepticism of census results and fears of urban political dominance, would forever alter the balance of representation.

Since the House was capped, the U.S. population has grown from 100 million to over 330 million, and the citizen-to-representative ratio has ballooned from 1:220,000 to 1:750,000. Members of Congress are overwhelmed; they continue to delegate their authority to bureaucracies, leaving citizens unrepresented. The cap also creates disparities in the Electoral College, encourages gerrymandering, and disenfranchises urban communities, including many Black Americans.

The 14th Amendment sought to ensure equal representation for formerly enslaved people by counting them fully in the apportionment process. However, the 1929 cap disproportionately harmed Black Americans in growing urban centers like Atlanta and Detroit. Without additional representatives, Black voters faced diluted political power in overcrowded districts. If Harris truly seeks to address the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation, expanding representation should be the first step.

Because the House seats are fixed at 435, gerrymandering congressional districts in key states affects how electoral votes are awarded. Instead of eliminating the Electoral College, as Walz suggests, expanding the House would make it more reflective of the popular vote and lessen the power of state legislatures to manipulate the electoral vote. As Jonah Goldberg recently argued, it "would alleviate much of the ‘undemocratic’ nature of the Electoral College.”

Rather than invoking executive overreach to deport immigrants, as Trump proposes, Congress could enact a new apportionment bill that counts only legal citizens for representation. This approach would encourage Congress to develop clear immigration rules and ensure that political power reflects the will of citizens.

No matter who wins the election in November, citizens must speak up for their representation to quell the radical populists. The capped house infringes on a citizen’s right of representation. Expanding the House of Representatives secures democracy, expands freedom, balances power, and increases accountability. It’s the first step in reforming a radically broken political system that supports radical political figures for President.

I am a habitual person. Once I build a habit, I struggle to break it. I typically build a new habit to replace it. When I was younger, I developed this habit of hitting my hip with my hand while I was walking. Such a strange thing. I never really noticed until someone at work pointed it out. Then, I couldn’t help but notice. I struggled to stop.

In order to stop, I carried a pen in my hand as much as possible. It acted as a fidget spinner of sorts. I would open and close the cap constantly. When I didn’t have the pen, I hit my hip, and I would say in my head, “Stop.” One time, I accidentally hit my hip with the pen; that was painful. Eventually, I stopped, and I was able to put the pen down.

As I got older I wanted to try that eating healthy and exercising thing. So, I carved out time every day to work out and blocked off weekend time to meal prep. Somedays would get away from me, and I wouldn’t work out. I didn’t let it discourage me; I just said to myself, I will get back on it tomorrow. And I did. Once the habit was built, it was hard to miss. Then I became a little addict, running 3-5 miles a day along with doing whatever exercise program my wife was on, CrossFit, P90x, or BeachBody.

I’ve since replaced the working out habit with reading. One day, I would like to get to a place in my life where I have time for both, but for now, this is a choice I have made. The reading habit, however, has led me on this journey for reform. America desperately needs congressional reform to tackle the problems of representation, incentives, and balance of power.

Having positive incentives helps us build good habits. Our current election system is full of incentives that create bad habits. The structure for winning elections is currently configured to encourage the wrong people to win office. So, year after year, we are investing in a bad habit that needs to be reformed.

The place to start is in primary elections. The current primary system incentivizes fundraising, celebrity, and availability, which leads unqualified representatives to victory. Much talk has been on Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), an electoral system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than voting for a single candidate.

I see a lot of merit in RCV, but I do not think RCV alone is enough. Below, I share my vision of a congressional primary structure that would incentivize the right leaders to victory.

My idea stems from four years of studying American history, political theory, and the electoral system, with a focus on how our Constitution is designed to unite us by communicating our differences. However, over time, elections have shifted into partisan battles for control, creating division through dissent. I’ve volunteered for local candidates from both parties and participated in a Congressional primary in 2022 that used RCV, giving me firsthand experience with the potential and challenges of election reforms.

The first question we must ask ourselves when building an election structure is what qualities should be emphasized. Congressional Representatives are like our government's customer service representatives. They are responsible for listening to our concerns and informing us about government action. When we have a problem, it’s them who we go to speak with.

A successful representative is one who knows about America and the Constitution and has a strong relationship with their district. If we want representatives like this to win office, we must create a structure that is focused on communication. The best way to communicate is to be in the same room as those you’re trying to communicate with.

During the primary season, each political party should organize weekly town halls, and each candidate would be required to attend. I would recommend three town halls a week at three different locations within the district. (This is because the districts are so large, and having multiple town halls across the district makes it easier for the voters.) The candidates would engage in a back-and-forth with each other and the voters. It would be recorded and uploaded to YouTube and Substack.

Consistency makes everything easier, and it benefits both the candidates and voters. It would encourage candidates who are the most knowledgeable of their constituents and their roles the best opportunity for victory. It will lessen the grind of a campaign. Instead of driving all over and knocking on doors trying to build a primary base, the candidate would have a set schedule to engage with their voter base. This will make it easier for candidates with busy family schedules to run and voters to participate.

In a primary season that is three months, voters will have 39 opportunities to meet all the candidates. If they cannot attend, they can watch it on YouTube or listen to it on Spotify.

To be placed on the primary ballot, candidates must raise enough money (a fixed amount to be determined by the party) to help pay for the campaign and election. Let’s say it costs $50,000 to put on a primary election, and five are on the ballot; they would each have to raise $10k to gain ballot access. Parties should set a minimum number of candidates for election and then recruit candidates to run. This would limit overspending while encouraging competition.

Fundraising during the primary is allowed, but spending is limited to the general election other than to gain ballot access. The party would be responsible for getting the word out about the primary election. This lowers the cost of entry but also creates a benchmark. You can’t buy a primary, and not every person with a passing interest can come up with 10k.

The voter must register with the party to vote in the primary election and attend or listen to at least one town hall. Verifying attendance is easy, but verifying listeners poses a challenge. Before voting, the voter would need to select which town hall they listened to and then take a short questionnaire to verify if they listened. The candidate would be responsible for attending all the town halls, engaging with the other candidates and voters, and fundraising for the election.

On election day, voters would use RCV to rank each candidate on the ballot (1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.) If a candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, they are declared the winner. If no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Voters who chose the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their votes reallocated to their next preferred candidate. This process repeats until a candidate receives a majority of the votes.

In addition, this process could be done by the current parties or any new parties. General election ballots should allow ballot access to party candidates that complete the party primary process. If the two parties use the primary process to exclude groups of people, they will have the opportunity to compete in the general by forming a new party and completing the primary process. New parties would need to have at least 65% of participation as the established parties. This means that if the Republicans had 20,000 voters, a new party would need 13,000. This ensures competition without diluting votes.

This process incentivizes communication and competition and creates the space for it to happen. It builds structure to reinforce positive habits, helping to form better candidates and primary voters. It’s time for us to demand better habits in politics—starting with meaningful reform in our primary system.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Let me know by leaving a comment or sending me an email. 

Peace & Love,

Jeff Mayhugh

While prepping for my upcoming interview with Yuval Levin, I decided to read The Fractured Republic: Renewing America's Social Contract in the Age of Individualism. It was released in 2016 before I became an avid reader or had even heard of Levin. The book didn’t disappoint, and it was fitting that I finished it on the day of the Vice Presidential debate.

In the book, Levin says, “Our frustration is driven in part by a failure of diagnosis—a failure of self-knowledge.” He discusses how nostalgia has blinded us, how centralized power and individualism have pulled us apart, and how a road to renewal requires changing behaviors and building new and better habits. He challenges a generation to use America’s “multiplicity to our advantage” and overcome our binary nature. He offers a bottom-up approach that diffuses and decentralizes power. Levin’s diagnosis is correct, and his optimistic vision empowers Americans to invest in their families and communities to unite our fractured Republic.

After reading the book, I was sitting in my office reading through the celebrity praise in the opening pages, and one of them caught my eye. J.D. Vance wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Levin is among the Republican Party’s great intellectual leaders and has proposed a new direction for conservatism. We’ll soon learn whether the party’s political leaders follow his wise advice.”

The story of J.D. Vance, from Middletown, Ohio, to US Senator to Vice Presidential nominee, is the type of story that inspires. His book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis which became a Hollywood hit in 2020, recounts the challenges he faced in Middletown and how he overcame them to graduate from Ohio State University and earn his Juris Doctor degree from Yale Law School.

However, it’s now 2024, and J.D. Vance is the Republican nominee for Vice President, making him a party leader with a very loud microphone. From then until now, it certainly appears that Vance is part of the conservative movement that has taken a new direction, but it appears he has ignored the wise advice of Mr. Levin. Instead of supporting Levin’s path of a bottom-up approach that diffuses and decentralizes power, Vance has followed Trump’s top-down plan of continued consolidation.

Share

Last night at the Vice Presidential debate, Vance was asked about his shifting policies to align with Trump and challenged to explain why Americans should trust him to “give Donald Trump the advice he needs to hear and not just the advice he wants to hear.” Vance replied that he had been open, saying, “I was wrong about Donald Trump.” He then praised Trump for getting things right. He said that when you say something wrong, you “outta be honest with the American people about it.” He believes it’s important to explain where he “comes down on the issues and what changed.”

Vance then points the finger at Republicans and Democrats in Congress for not governing effectively, saying they were too obsessed with impeaching Donald Trump. I don’t agree with Vance’s implication that Trump’s impeachments were a central part of Congressional ineffectiveness. I do, however, agree that the obsession, both good and bad, with Donald Trump by both parties exacerbates congressional dysfunction. It’s great that Vance pointed the finger at Congress, but he only did so in a way that continues the obsession with Donald Trump.

I wonder if Vance is still paying attention to Levin after choosing his new direction. In his latest book, American Covenant, Levin points out that many of our political problems result from an ineffective and dysfunctional Congress. Vance is correct in pointing the finger at Congress; however, he had nothing of substance to say about the issue.

I’m not sure what change led Vance to follow Trump's version of conservatism over Levin’s, but last night at the debate, Vance proved he is a gifted communicator of conservative values. Also, it doesn’t appear that Vance has abandoned all of his old views. Now that he is a leader in the Republican party, he can amplify Levin’s wise advice of diffusion and decentralization. He has the skill, but does he have the courage?

America needs leaders with the courage to have difficult conversations to end our cycle of dysfunction and repair our fractured republic. Vance has an opportunity with the mini bully pulpit to jumpstart a debate about congressional reform and have a serious conversation with Americans about the issues of representation, incentives, and balance of power that leave Americans from Middletown, Ohio, and beyond powerless. It’s time to turn the page from dysfunction to reform. America is ready. Can J.D. Vance deliver?

The new book Fixing Congress by Michael Johnson and Jerome Climer highlights the pressing need for Media Literacy among citizens. It quotes Thomas Jefferson, “If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed." The quote underscores the importance of being well-informed in today's media landscape.

Chapter Eight discusses the history of media and how technology, especially social media, has changed the media landscape. And how politicians are masters at using the changing technology, print to radio, radio to television, television to social media, to their benefit. In Chapter Nine, Media Literacy is explained as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and act” on the information received. The Chapter is full of great information that can help the average voter sift through disinformation and fake news and find the kernels of truth relevant to the discussion.

Oliver Wendall Holmes explains the importance of Free speech in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (1919)—a case about Russian immigrants circulating papers critical of the United States.

“[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.”

In these highly divided political times, Media literacy is of the utmost importance. It would be nice to have secure leaders who weren’t afraid of the marketplace of competition. Instead of trying to control or intimidate speech, they should embrace debate and guide followers to seek more information before making up their minds.

The election is in November, and no matter who wins, Free Speech must be protected. The American Experiment depends on it. Americans should put aside their partisan differences and come together and compete in the marketplace of ideas. Voters looking to live up to the responsibility of freedom and protect free speech can start by reading Fixing Congress.

Peace and Love,

Jeff Mayhugh

While the internet is ablaze with finger-pointing and conspiracy theories, I wanted to imagine what it would be like to have strong leadership during this time of division. Below is an example of what Americans need to hear from a Vice President seeking to become President.

Americans,

We are blessed for the safety of former President Trump after another assassination attempt. First, I want to reassure you that I will work with President Biden to get our house in order; we must take the necessary measures to protect all presidential candidates during this heightened time of division. Second, I want to let you know that while Donald Trump and I are competing for the Presidency, we are still united when it comes to America. He is not the enemy and must not be treated as such. Third, this administration and the next will cooperate with Congress to investigate the lapses of the Secret Service so we can fill the necessary gaps and ensure all presidential candidates are protected now and in the future. Transparency, accountability, and cooperation must be a priority.

Americans are anxious, and in these times of negativity and division, I understand it can be easy to embrace the negativity or just turn away. We must remember Lincoln’s words and appeal to “the better angels of our nature." We must not give in to the negativity. We must look for the best in each other. We must lift each other up instead of pushing each other down. We must respond in kind rather than in anger. We must turn away from hate and embrace love— love for our neighbors, our countrymen, and the United States of America.

I want a president who is in charge and accountable, can see other’s perspectives, and inspires positivity in America. A former President has been hunted on a Golf Course and shot at while at the podium. A statement with accountability and a commitment to action that unites is needed. If Harris wants to turn the page and inspire hope, she must lead when the moments present themselves, turning the negativity into positivity.

Peace and Love,

Jeff Mayhugh

Harris sounded shaky out of the gate with a question about the economy but settled down quickly. She framed herself as a middle-class American living the American dream while painting Trump as part of the old guard, the one percent, elite, and out of touch with average Americans. Trump helped her by reminding everyone that he went to the elite institution of the Wharton School of Finance with “top professors.” Harris repeatedly got under Trump’s skin, accusing him of selling America out to China, reminding him that 81 million Americans fired him, and encouraging people to go to a Trump rally and see the crowd leave during the third quarter.

In between needling Trump, Harris shifted her policies. She made it clear that she supports fracking, a two-state solution, and a cease-fire with all the hostages freed. She also said she would sign a national abortion bill framing the issue as a freedom the government should not infringe on. She spoke with rhythm and repetitiveness, saying, “I have a plan” and “Donald Trump left us…” She spoke clearly and let Americans know she has an opportunity plan for the economy, and Donald Trump left America in a bad place.

Trump appeared agitated and looked old. He stood there like a stone with a frown and again showed his trademark lack of discipline. In the Biden debate, Trump’s answer on abortion was a strong point. During the debate with Harris, he faltered and rambled. When referencing Ralph Northam, he mistook West Virginia for Virginia and later went on a tangent about student loans. Then he showed his great leadership skills, saying he hadn’t discussed the issue with his running mate and throwing J.D. Vance under the bus.

While Harris is part of the current administration, she was able to deflect the current troubles onto Trump, saying that the Biden administration has “cleaned up Donald Trump’s mess.” Viewers were reminded that he failed to build the wall, repeal and replace Obamacare, or drain the swamp. What he did do was get outplayed by our foreign adversaries, inviting the Taliban to Camp David and getting wooed with “flattery and favors” by strongmen like Putin and Kim Jong-un. Harris also reminded voters that Trump killed the bipartisan immigration bill because he would rather run on a problem instead of solving a problem. Trump failed to effectively counter her because he was focused on his rallies and crowd size.

Share

Trump's worst moment came when he insisted on defending January 6th and shielded himself from responsibility, saying he had nothing to do with it and that he has no regrets about the day. He was only asked to give a speech. This answer is strange for many reasons. It plays into Harris’s accusation that he is easily manipulated by others, showing he lacks the power and authority to be President. It also shows his lack of knowledge about our democratic republic. Did he ever stop to think about why he was giving a speech and what the purpose was? I mean, it was written all over on signs. The purpose was to “stop the steal.” His speech legitimized an attempt to reverse the results of an election because he lost.

Trump incited fear, scaring voters about rising crime and people dying every day. He said twice that if he were elected, before taking office, he would end a war currently raging and that if Harris were elected, America would be thrown into WWIII. It begs the question, if ending war was that easy, and he doesn’t need to be president to get it done, why doesn’t he do it now? Is it because he sees problems as opportunities for himself to gain power instead of things to be solved?

While Harris used her time to reiterate a vision of optimism, saying it was time to turn the page. Trump used his time talking about rumors of immigrants eating dogs. He looked generally confused when told the rumors were unsubstantiated, repeatedly saying, “The people on television.” He showed voters that his debate prep was similar to that of a crazy, distant uncle, isolating himself in a bubble of entertainment and failing to take it seriously. Maybe flying to the debate with Laura Loomer wasn’t a good idea.

It’s clear Harris was well prepared, while Trump just winged it. Trump’s camp will likely scapegoat the moderators for fact-checking him while ignoring the fact that Trump was unprepared. Somehow, nothing is ever his fault. He won’t take accountability for himself, and his followers are often too cowardly to hold him accountable.

Harris projected hope, opportunity, and joy, while Trump fed viewers division, deception, fear, and anger. Harris let Americans know that she has a plan, while Trump reminded them that he only has “concepts of a plan.” Harris plans to lead by bringing Americans from the left and right together to focus on turning the page. Trump’s version of leadership is to fire anyone who makes a mistake. Harris repeatedly talked about Americans struggling with the current political division and encouraged unity; Trump repeatedly talked about himself and stoked division.

In the coming weeks, we will see how the debate impacted the election. It will be interesting to see if Trump’s poor performance causes him to cower and back out of the next debate. He usually deals with problems by yelling at them, running away, and isolating himself in front of the television. Will Harris maintain her vision of optimism and capitalize on her strong performance? One debate does not define an election—there are still 54 more days until Election Day. Lots of time left in the game.

Bill Scher of the Washington Monthly thinks Kamala Harris should appoint a Republican to her cabinet, and Harris agrees. Names like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger are already being tossed around on X. However, there is only one Republican who can secure two major voting blocks and has a large national grassroots organization.

Let me tell you why Harris should offer to appoint Nikki Haley and why Haley should decline.

Haley is the most “normie” Republican out there. The move would secure Harris the Never Trump vote and lock down the women’s vote. It would be an olive branch to moderate Republicans left out of Trump’s new populist party.

Appointing Haley as Secretary of State would be the most effective move. It would ensure that decisions about foreign policy are made with the entire country in mind, not just the ruling party. During this time of global tensions, it would ease the minds of anxious Americans disappointed with the current Biden-Harris administration’s policies. It would signal to the world that America is United in dealing with foreign enemies like China, Russia, and North Korea.

Haley, for her part, should decline. (And no, it’s not just because Haley believes she has a political future in the GOP and that working for Harris would derail that.)

Power in the American Republic is off balance due to issues with representation, incentives, and executive power. Average Americans are unrepresented, the incentives of power lead the wrong people to office, and the executive branch has far too much power. Haley should focus on the remedy instead of taking the easy pathway to power.

If Haley wants to be President someday, and if she wants to get anything productive done, she should focus on Congress. Seventy-six percent of Americans disapprove of Congress. Congress is responsible for safeguarding our sovereignty, writing laws, managing the purse, and executive oversight. However, our border is overrun, citizens are over-regulated, the country is drowning in debt, and the executive branch has far too much power.

Haley can help balance our republic by empowering Congress. Currently, there are 21 toss-up congressional districts: 13 districts that lean Democrat and 8 that lean Republican. That’s 42 swingable districts for a coalition with the right message.

That message should be Congressional Reform.

We see great American thinkers pointing the finger at Congress for our dysfunction everywhere we turn, from Neil Gorsuch to Yuval Levin. In his new book, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation―and Could Again, Levin writes, “When the system works well, it is usually because Congress is more or less doing its job. When the system is dysfunctional, it is often because Congress is dysfunctional–– as it plainly has been during our time.”

The people and the scholars agree that Congress is the problem. To remedy that problem, Congressional Reform is needed. To bring reform to the forefront of American politics, it will take a politician who dares to stand against the current tide of partisanship and who seeks to unite, not by creating a group that agrees more but, as Levin puts it, building unity by disagreeing better.

Share

Why Nikki Haley?

While campaigning for President, Haley spoke with clarity and a southern folksy charm. She was funny when joking about Biden’s unfitness for office and serious when talking about policy. She pointed out how Trump, Biden, and Congress have continued to saddle future generations with massive debt.

Speaking at a rally in Virginia, Haley pointed out that Congress has only passed a budget on time four times in the past forty years. If Haley is serious about holding Congress accountable for its ineffectiveness and fiscal irresponsibility, here is an opportunity.

When political power is isolated into two large groups, it creates an opportunity for a small group built within the two large groups to shift power between them. The large groups then depend on the small group to get anything done and are forced to make concessions. And it’s the small group that typically drives the conversation. We have seen this recently with The Squad and Tea Party in Congress.

Haley should use her time and resources to build a reform coalition welcoming Republicans and Democrats. There is a multiplicity of reform groups already in existence. Many would be ready to work with politicians who take the issue seriously. Haley could bring together people from the Forward Party, Convention of the States, Never-Trumpers, and former Tea Party members–– uniting behind the message of congressional reform and sharing resources with candidates in toss-up districts to win office.

Lifting 15-20 candidates to victory will create a new faction inside Congress focused on reform and thankful to Haley for getting them into office. While in battleground districts leading the conversation about Congressional Reform, Haley would also share with voters what a future Nikki Haley administration would look like on foreign and domestic policy. The Haley influence in Congress could provide a healthy check on executive power, regardless of whether Trump or Harris wins in November. Facetime with voters and volunteers in the key districts will help build her run for 2028.

The American Republic was designed to balance power in a large, diverse nation. While Congress is the preeminent branch of the government, the President has often taken a large role in balancing power by leading or facilitating the political conversation. Washington helped balance power during the founding between the federal and state governments; during the Civil War, Lincoln helped balance power between moderate and radical Republicans, peace and war Democrats; Teddy Roosevelt helped balance power between the federal government and the Trusts; and FDR helped balance power between the free world and the tyrants.  

Nikki Haley could join them by changing the conversation about who to vote against into a conversation about what to vote for—helping balance the republic and ushering in a new era of politics. She has the charisma and charm to get the job done; now, she needs the right message. The people want to vote for Congressional Reform. Nikki Haley could give them that opportunity.

Factions, factions, factions everywhere. The Conservative movement is fractured and split into different factions, leaving conservatives (largely) on the outside of political power. 

Fractured power is normal in politics. Political parties are full of factions battling for supremacy. During the 1992 elections, Pat Buchanan and the populists primaried the moderate GOP president George H.W. Bush. More recently, we have seen the populist factions of the GOP manifest themselves from the Tea Party to MAGA. The populist finally won, and MAGA is the established standard bearer of the Republican party, for the time being, at least.

The moderates are on the outside, and they have separated themselves into two conservative groups: Never-Trumpers, who cross party lines and vote for Democrats (NTDs), and Never-Trumpers, who won’t (NTWs). For the most part, these two groups have gotten along since the takeover, but NTDs are gaining influence, and it’s causing friction. But that’s not always a bad thing.

Principles First has been a landing spot for conservatives left out of the populist rise to power. Founder Heath Mayo started it in 2019 and, in just five years, has turned it into a “nationwide grassroots movement” at the top of the moderate faction. 

Prominent Principle Firsters like Joe Walsh are embracing Kamala Harris for president, while some supporters believe the organization has left its conservative principles behind with its support for the Democratic nominee. Mayo has patiently defended his position on X that Trump and Trumpism need to be defeated, and Harris is the best option at the moment.

The Democrats have welcomed the conservative organization. Principle Firsters Adam Kinzinger and Geoff Duncan, among others, spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Kinzinger lifted the crowd, saying, “I want to let my fellow Republicans in on the secret; the Democrats are as patriotic as us.”

I mean, I hope so; we are all Americans.

Every political faction has its preferred media. Jefferson and the Republicans had the National Gazette, and Hamilton and the Federalists had the Gazette of the United States. Aligned with Principles First are the Bulwark and The Dispatch. I myself have aligned with Principles First in a limited fashion, attending their conferences in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Although not part of the media, I’m a dad looking for representation.

While many from Principles First, the Bulwark, and some from the Dispatch have embraced being an NTD, others from The Dispatch and other conservative outlets like National Review have not.

David French of the Dispatch and New York Times recently wrote that he would vote for Kamala Harris. Saying he was doing it in part to “save conservatism.” Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch politely replied. The first part of his response is a brilliant explanation of why arguments about voting are useless: that our Democratic Republic is far too complex to depend on one vote for success. Goldberg disagrees with French because voting for Harris is really voting against Trump. Goldberg would prefer to keep the argument clean and explain what type of candidate citizens should vote for rather than against.

The fracture between conservatives continued to grow over the weekend after Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark and Stephen Hayes of the Dispatch got into it on Twitter; I mean, X… Longwell went after Hayes over his comment about conservatives “fluffing a statist progressive Kiel Kamala Harris.” Longwell simplified the argument. Saying, “All your analysis simply ignores how dangerous Trump is. Beating him requires making an affirmative case for the alternative.” She challenges Hayes, saying, “Which scenario is more dangerous for our country and for our allies abroad? Trump winning or Harris winning?”

However, as Goldberg explained in his article, “America isn’t any democracy. Our form of government is distinct.” It’s not as simple as Longwell makes it out to be. It’s not about one person, one decision, or one vote; it's a multiplicity of decisions that brought us to the current moment. And a multiplicity of decisions that will lead us to the next one. The President is not the only power in government. Congress writes the laws, manages the purse, and provides executive oversight.

As the debate continued, Goldberg jumped in to defend Hayes, and Tom Nichols of the Atlantic jumped in to defend Longwell. Nichols makes the point that until Trump is defeated, “policy differences just don't matter.” Which he acknowledges drives conservatives nuts.

The public disagreements have highlighted the growing division between the NTDs of the Bulwark and Principles First and the NTWs of The Dispatch and National Review.

When I first attended Principles First in 2022, I was impressed. It was a mix of leaders from the media, political and intellectual communities, and followers from Main Street USA. The focus was on having better conversations around politics. The audience was encouraged to participate, and after the panels were over, the panelists provided guests with lots of access to continue the conversation.

However, with each passing year, the panels are given more time to speak and the audience less. As a result, the room has more suits and ties in it and fewer polo shirts and jeans. Many of the Main Street crowd seeking a grassroots movement have been let down. The last Principles First happy hour I attended was more of a business networking event than a grassroots movement. Leaving it’s Main Street followers to wonder, “Why am I here?”

Principles First is fighting the political battle in the executive’s sphere. This is what Longwell was doing, boiling it down to one vote and ignoring policy. However, it’s not just one vote and policy matters. Instead, the battle should be fought in the congressional sphere. After all, that’s where policy becomes law. Battling there creates more opportunity and makes it easier to stack up wins since entry to the office is far less expensive in donations and volunteers.

I’ve met many intellectuals and Main Street followers who attended Principles First with a flurry of talent. Unfortunately, Principles First has not been able to cultivate that talent into something more. Overall, I think Principles First has been a positive force, but ignoring conservative policies, supporting Harris, and failing to cultivate new talent has limited its growth. And now, it’s joining Democrats to get on the inside of political power. 

The more influence the NTDs have inside the Democratic party, the more they will become Democrats, leaving the NTWs as the only conservatives left. With Principles First having so many members supporting Harris, it’s boxing itself in, leaving an opening for leadership in the Never Trump faction. This vacuum will need to be filled. A possible landing spot for those left out is the Reagan Caucus. Their vision is the “restoration of the Republican Party,” aiming to “rekindle the spirit of true conservatism.” The Reagan Caucus has not boxed themselves in, saying, “This election is a difficult decision for non-populist conservatives, and we endorse neither candidate.”

More than what’s best politically and strategically, we must ask ourselves, what is best for the country? The populist wave that pushed moderates out was successful because Congress is failing to uphold its responsibilities. The executive branch has too much power, and average citizens feel unrepresented. Seventy-six percent of Americans disapprove of Congress. 

Principles First panelist James Wallner, is one of the authors of Congress Overwhelmed: The Decline in Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform. He and many of the leading scholars believe that what's best for America is congressional reform.

What if the Reagan Caucus invited young conservatives to join and pitch their best plan for congressional reform? It could be a place to connect scholars with Main Street followers of unrepresented America, a place where ideas come to debate, and people make choices to shape the next moment.

A conservative movement will need a clear vision of what voters should vote for instead of who they should vote against to have the strength to rise above MAGA and not get sucked up by the Democrats. To grow large enough to compete, conservatives will need to lift new leaders into the movement.

If the Reagan Caucus wants to restore the Republican Party and grow the conservative faction, they will need to cultivate new leadership with a platform voters can support. The scholars and the people agree; they want to vote for congressional reform. Now, they need candidates and a plan of action.

For now, the conservative movement is still fighting about Trump and battling in the executive sphere. The failure to redefine the argument about conservatism and how it can help average Americans has led to the growing division within the faction. However, the friction in the movement creates an opportunity for growth. It's not unrealistic to believe that things could change sooner than later. NTWs looking for a place to land should find refuge in the Reagan Caucus and keep reading The Dispatch and National Review. If you are looking for hope, and new leaders to lift up, check out The Freemen News-Letter an up-and-coming outlet spearheaded by some very talented people. 

The Democratic National Convention has been part dance party, demagoguery, and inspiration—full of energy and excitement. Political power couple Barack and Michelle Obama took the stage on Tuesday night, delivering uplifting speeches about hope, opportunity, and what it means to be an American. 

The event has been filled with talk of joy and optimism, but what’s optimistic about a campaign empty on policy that ignores the problems of average Americans?

In her speech, Michelle Obama said, “Hope is making a comeback.” She shared how her mom inspired her by living “out that striving sense of hope” and how she believed that “all people have value” and that “anyone can succeed if given the opportunity.”

Former President Barack Obama also took the stage, and in between taking shots at Trump, he continued the message of hope and optimism. He shared what he admired about Joe Biden, saying he believed “everyone in this country deserves a fair shot.” He says the vision of the Harris administration and the Democratic party is that “All of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights that everyone deserves a chance.”

They paint an optimistic picture of America where anyone (even kids with funny names) can become anything they want with hard work, determination, and opportunity. However, if the Obamas and the Harris administration are serious about their vision of America as full of opportunity, they should focus on representation and expand opportunities for the next generation of leaders.

Many Americans believe the American Revolution was fought over taxes, but it was really fought over a lack of representation. “No Taxation without representation” was the battle cry. The rising cost of safety following the French and Indian War led Britain to tax the American Colonists. Colonists understood taxes were necessary; however, they wanted a voice in how those taxes were applied. Benjamin Franklin traveled to Britain in the years leading up to the revolution, seeking representation for the American colonies. When the British government refused, the colonists declared their independence, fought for their freedom, and set forth on their own.

John Adams in IV. The Bill of Rights, a List of Grievances, states, “All free government is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council,” and the “right of representation” must be preserved. When representation is preserved, hope and opportunity are secured. And that’s just what our founders did when writing the Constitution, dividing the power of Congress between the states and the people of the states and securing representation for the people at a representative-to-citizen ratio of 1:30k.

Share

Unfortunately, in 1929, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, establishing a fixed number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives at 435. Representation would no longer be added as the population grew, therefore limiting representation for future generations like us. The gap between citizens and their representatives has grown from 1:220k in the 1920s to 1:756k today.

The gap in representation has led to a federal government that is largely out of touch with the people it represents—leading to a rise in populism on both sides of the political spectrum. When representation is limited, opportunity is limited.

Obama recognizes that the government is out of touch with the next generation when speaking about housing, saying, “We need to chart a new way forward...we need to build more units and clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations that made it harder to build homes for working people.”

However, when he says we, he is not talking about the working people of America but the few who hold representative power. For far too many average citizens, representation is out of reach, and the opportunity to make change is limited. Instead of representatives writing laws that citizens must live by, they should write laws expanding representation, allowing more to participate in the legislature.

The Permanent Apportionment Act is one of the old, outdated laws that need to be cleared away. It makes it harder for working people to be represented, and if it were, laws and regulations would be less likely to be written to make it harder for them to buy homes.

We all want hope, but what is hopeful about a system that shuts out the next generation? It’s nothing but a mirage. It's great to hear uplifting stories about this great country and how democracy has delivered for the people in power, but Americans have real problems and should have a say in how they are solved. Americans need democracy to deliver representation.

The empire is dying. That’s what our leaders would have you believe. Around every corner, there are cries to save democracy, stop authoritarianism, and put America first. The fingers point from the left and the right. Every election is life or death. There is a lot of talk about problems and very little talk about solutions other than complete and total control. If the other side wins, it’s over.

Well, I am here to tell you it’s not that dire. Americans only need a lesson on our democratic republic, and Hollywood can help.

The Constitution gives citizens a right to representation, but every right is a responsibility. Our founders considered citizen education of the utmost importance in preserving liberty. Without it, citizens might elect weak, incompetent, or corrupt leadership.

Most citizens consider America a democracy where the people rule. However, that’s not the case. We are a Democratic Republic. Power is divided, separated, balanced, and shared with the people. The people still rule, but our representatives hold the power. We don’t vote to get what we want. We elect leaders to represent us, keep us safe, and act in the interest of the nation.

The best way to learn this is through the stories of our past. A more informed voter will elect better representatives. Our generation has been gifted with historians on par with Herodotus and Plutarch. We also have the technology and know-how to bring the stories to life and share them with more citizens than ever before.

Americans love a good story of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, told from the hero’s point of view. One movie turns into two movies. Then it’s a trilogy; before you know it, it’s its own universe from Star Wars to Marvel to D.C., from Iron Man and Captain America to Luke and Han, to Batman and Superman. Once Americans are told a great story, they want more.

The story of America is special. It is a story of rebellion and empire, right vs. wrong. It has heroes like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and James Garfield and villains like Benedict Arnold, Jefferson Davis, and Roscoe Conkling. It’s full of suspense and surprise endings, betrayal and intrigue. If told properly, it would leave viewers on the edge of their seats and more informed about the responsibility of citizenship.

The story should start with the original Captain America, George Washington. His story is one of sacrifice, risk, and triumph—a modern-day Cincinnatus who walked away from a crown. Sequels and prequels would tell the stories of the individuals who built America: Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, as well as the events of the French and Indian War, Revolutionary War, Constitutional Convention, and War of 1812.

As the franchise grows, it moves into the Antebellum period, an age of darkness. Following people like John Quincy Adams, John C. Calhoun, James K. Polk, and Henry Clay, covering the events that led to the Civil War—a passive battle of silence and control. In the darkness, new heroes would be born, such as Frederick Douglass, Ulysses S. Grant, and Abraham Lincoln, who debated evil and formed a team of rivals, quelling internal rebellion and extending human liberty and self-government.

America is a story written for Hollywood. Modern biographers such as Ron Chernow, David McCullough, H.W. Brands, and Doris Kerns Goodwin have laid the saga's foundation. Hollywood is great at adapting good books (and comic books) into great movies like The Godfather, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter.

There is already proof of how successful this could be with the Chernow adaptation of Hamilton for Broadway and the McCullough adaptation of Adams for HBO. Both were expertly done. If a movie studio were to focus resources on creating an American universe, the profits, both in dollars and wisdom, would be unmatched. Republicans and Democrats would pile into the theaters and learn everything they need to know about representative democracy by watching it in action.

Saving democracy requires education, not finger-pointing. Americans need more information. Hollywood can help by sharing America with more citizens than ever before. Instead of learning about the politics of the Galactic Empire, a generation of Americans can learn about the politics of their grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents, helping them better understand today's politics.

Americans are intelligent, thoughtful people. If Hollywood producers make learning about representative democracy as entertaining as learning about BBQ and home improvements, everything will be fine.

Kamala Harris announced her Vice Presidential pick on Tuesday, disappointing “Never-Trump conservatives” like Matt Lewis and David French and exciting Trump supporters who will paint the ticket, as Ron DeSantis put it, the “most left-wing ticket in American history.”

Harris selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who used his first opportunity to address a crowd as the Vice Presidential nominee to make a low-brow joke based on a rumor about his counterpart, J.D. Vance. This continued the strategy of when one side goes low, the other side goes lower.

Harris could have picked Josh Shapiro, who electrified the crowd last night speaking about his faith, which would have given conservatives something to support. However, as Lewis points out in his recent article in The Hill, the Walz pick signals that Harris is more interested in motivating her base than building a diversely represented political coalition. This type of political maneuvering has, Lewis says, “tremendously harmed America.”

What will conservatives do if Harris won’t throw them a bone?

Heath Mayo, the founder of Principles First, challenges Harris to do just that. Well, actually, Mayo wants her to throw four bones. He lays out four points that, if followed, could “win [the Harris-Walz ticket] the percentage of principled conservatives and independents that they’ll need to make the difference in close states like PA, MI, WI, and AZ.”

His four points are:

1. Support Israel

2. Support Capitalism

3. Support the Rule of Law

4. Secure the Border

(Click here for more details.)

What if Harris agreed to Mayo’s terms? Why should conservative voters believe her words when her actions say something else? Wouldn’t her agreement be nothing more than empty promises? I am unsure empty promises are enough to sway conservative voters who have lived through a very progressive era of politics with few conservative wins other than a Supreme Court that has arguably held the line.

What should a conservative voter do?

Conservative Thomas Howes, Reagan Caucus director, tweeted, “I'm done with this election. I hope you all enjoy it.” Maybe that’s the answer; maybe we should sit out the presidential election. The idea might sound crazy at first, but when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.

I consider myself a conservative Republican, which, at its foundation, means I support a divided, separated, and balanced government with a multiplicity of checks and balances. I believe a Republican government is the best way to prevent the concentration of power. I want to conserve the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which outline the division and limitation of federal power.

Republican government is about dividing power, and modern-day politics is about concentrating it into the controlling faction’s hands. Why should conservative Republicans like me support Harris or Trump when it’s clear they do not support Republican government?

If we step back from fighting over who’s in charge and analyze why we are fighting, we learn that structural issues are plaguing our republic. Leading scholars like Kevin Kosar, James Wallner, and Philip Wallach believe many of our issues stem from an overwhelmed Congress. Congress was designed as the supreme authority of government. However, over time, the executive branch has dwarfed Congress. Congress lacks the capacity to check the executive properly regardless of whether the President is red or blue.

When citizens go to the ballot box, they exchange their power in return for representation. The return of representation, however, is, at best, fifty percent. When citizens vote for the President, whether red or blue, they empower the executive.

Citizens, including conservative Republicans like me, who feel left out by partisanship, should forgo the presidential election and focus their time on state and congressional races. This would transfer their power and representation back to Congress. It’s not that they should not vote; it’s that they should not vote for the President but instead vote for Congress.

With this strategy, whoever is elected President would be immediately handicapped, and Congress would be empowered. So, if a citizen doesn’t like Harris or Trump, instead of taking the coin flip at the ballot box, they could instead concentrate their power in Congress.

A strategy like this needs two things for it to work: something to unite voters and a plan of action.

Speaking with Republicans, Democrats, MAGA supporters, progressives, Principle Firsters, and readers of the Dispatch, Bulwark, and The Blaze in breweries, coffee shops, and hotel lobbies, there is one issue on which they can all agree. Like the scholars, they believe Congress is broken and desperately needs reform. If given the opportunity, citizens would support reforms like term limits, expanding the House of Representatives, raising congressional pay, and campaign finance reform. They may disagree on which reforms must be adopted, but they agree reforms are needed, and it’s time to debate them.

A coalition of engaged voters focusing on electing representatives who advocate for congressional reform could elect a congress with the power to get things done and hold the executive accountable by the midterms of 2026.

Sometimes, the greatest power a person has is the power to walk away from a bad situation. If you are in a fight with someone who is screaming and yelling at you, refuses to listen to your concerns, and demands you act as they see fit, the best course of action is not to sit there and scream back or rationalize their bad behavior but to walk away.  

We can keep fighting over the executive branch and feeding it power, allowing the conversation to be dominated by politicians who crave that power, or we can walk away and start a new conversation about Congressional Reform. Power is positive or negative, 0 or 1, on or off. It can be accumulated and concentrated. By redirecting the people's power and concentrating it in Congress, it creates an opportunity for change.  

In my article out today in The Hill, I discuss Republicans calling Vice President Harris a DEI hire. Harris wasn't selected based on race, but rather patronage. Patronage exchanges political appointments and jobs in return for political support and loyalty. Hiring practices that focus on something other than qualifications and competency attract grifters for power and wealth. It's hypocritical for Republicans to attack Harris when their nominee, Trump, has plans to expand political patronage to levels not seen since the Gilded Age.

Old man Biden is lashing out at the “elites.” The press that once covered for him has now turned on him. The party is slowly distancing itself from him. It’s only a matter of time before Biden steps aside. We should move on from debating whether he should run and debate who should replace him on the ticket.

By minute twelve of the first Presidential debate, the American people saw what Biden’s inner circle surely sees daily, and it can’t be unseen. In one minute, it was evident that the “elite” that Biden is now attacking was really propping him up. It unmasked his delusion and the administration's weakness. This is why, when Biden does step aside, Kamala Harris should not be the nominee.

After a disastrous debate performance, a week of inaction, excuses, sinking poll numbers, and calls from his own party to drop out, Biden finally sat down for an interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

In the interview, Biden maintained his Wilsonian delusion that he is the “most qualified person to beat him (Trump).” He continued the excuses, saying he had a “bad night” and wasn’t “in control” due to inadequate preparation and a lingering illness. At times, Biden exuded a Trumpian flare, saying, “I took on big pharma. I beat them. No one said I could beat them.” His performance did not calm the nerves of anxious Americans who believe democracy is on the ballot.

Like Woodrow Wilson, Biden has been enabled by those near him, and the American people have been betrayed by the administration behind him. After Wilson's stroke in October 1919, Edith Wilson controlled the information to the President. In 2024, Jill guides Biden off-stage and speaks for him. And much like Wilson’s Vice President Thomas Marshall, who “dreaded the great task” of the Presidency, Harris has whimpered at the responsibility, failing to lead the administration to enact the 25th amendment.

So, the question remains, if not Biden or Harris, then who?

If we take the position of the New York Times editorial board and agree that this is a “chance to protect the soul of the nation,” then the question must be asked to the whole nation, not just the democratic faction.

I propose Dean Phillips. He entered Congress as a reform candidate, defeating five-time incumbent Erick Paulsen. He recognizes the plight of the common man and the next generation, saying, “A majority of our neighbors live paycheck to paycheck … unable to get ahead and save for their dreams.” He acknowledges that the “Chaos at our border and in our cities is growing.”

It’s important to remember that while Kamala Harris and the administration have been telling us for months that Biden’s age is not an issue, Phillips was challenging him for the Democratic nomination in a primary system that MAGA and progressive supporters might consider “rigged.” Phillips campaigned telling voters he believed Biden “is at a stage in life where his capacities are diminished.”

So, while most of the Democrats cleared the field for Biden, Phillips was the only one with the courage to tell voters the truth. It’s also worth noting that Phillips is the only serious candidate who ran in a democratically elected campaign for the Presidency. How much democracy would take place if Gavin Newson were to have the nomination?

A majority of Americans disapprove of Congress. Phillips should capitalize on that by introducing a reform plan focusing on Congress. This plan should include campaign finance reform to limit the George Santos of the world from winning elections, term limits that require leaders to step aside when their time has come, and increasing the capacity of the Congress to provide the legislative manpower needed for a post-Chevron world. These issues resonate with most Americans and focus on the core of our republic's failures.

Phillips could unite the progressives, old-guard Democrats, and Never-Trump crowd by giving them a candidate who can defeat Trump and save democracy. He could entice MAGA supporters tired of Trump's stick and lack of accomplishments by offering a reform plan for the “rigged system” and doing what Trump failed to do: “drain the swamp.”

After suffering his stroke, Wilson still believed he was the most qualified man for the job. During the 1920 Democratic convention, he maintained the delusion of a third term so much that he never threw his support behind another candidate. Biden shouldn’t make the same mistake; he should step aside and support a candidate who can defeat Trump.

The idea that out of 330 million people, there is only one person who can defeat Trump and “save democracy” is as silly as Biden beating Big Pharma or Trump building the wall—the only people who believe that are those trapped inside the bubble of power. Everyone else wants a guy who isn’t corrupted by power and who doesn’t cower from it, either.

America needs leaders with courage, knowledge, and talent. America needs a leader like Dean Phillips, who believes “in the American people” and that “it is time to walk from the shadows of darkness into the bright sunshine of the future.”

The Presidential debate between Biden and Trump is scheduled to take place tonight. I have been dreading it all week. I debated writing about their strengths and weaknesses as leaders, their incompetence and corruption as men, or about the absurd rules of the debate, but I don’t know what value that would bring to the average citizen. Instead, I tried to imagine if someone else was running for president who embodied the knowledge and spirit of our founders. What would that person say? How would they lead? Would they point fingers and name-call or deliver an honest assessment of our situation? Would they use fear to drive support or hope?

While writing the speech below, I thought about Washington, Adams, and Jefferson, Lincoln, Garfield, and Kennedy. What would they do? How would they lead? What would they say? Would they beg for more power or empower others to make change?

After all, why should I care about Trump and Biden when it’s so obvious from their actions that they don’t care about America?

I stand here tonight, humbled to be running for President of the United States of America. I know many of you out there don’t have a high opinion about the country right now. I don’t blame you. However, it’s not as dark and gloomy as others paint. It is still the greatest country to live in, hands down. In America, liberty rings for all to hear.

I get it though. You’re frustrated. Maybe you’re a little afraid. War is all around us. Technology is advancing at an alarming rate. The economy is a mess. The debt is out of control, and the political temperature keeps rising. And while the parties are pointing fingers over immigration, our border is overrun. It’s like those leading us don’t care about the future.

These problems didn’t happen overnight; they resulted from decisions made generations ago. And those dividing us are only a small representation of America. We can either be mad at the past or focus on the future. We can either hold a grudge or forgive. We can become part of the problem or get to work on solving it. On the horizon is a generation of leaders who are prepared to clean up the messes of our grandfathers—leaders who won’t be distracted by saving democracy but focus on repairing the lifeblood of liberty—the Republic.

The American Revolution was fought over a lack of representation, not taxes, as commonly misrepresented. After the founding, the new American Republic stood as a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world. South America was determined to follow the American model and free itself from monarchal rule. Simón Bolivar, inspired by George Washington, liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule in the early 1800s.

Bolivar was born into a wealthy family of Spanish descent. He was educated abroad and, like our founders, studied Enlightenment Philosophy. He understood that for a nation to support liberty, it needed a government of people, not kings. A Republican government made that possible, and Venezuela, New Granada, Ecuador, and Panama joined to form the Republic of Colombia.

If you were to ask someone in 1800 what makes America great, they would have told you the Republican Government. Republican government divides, separates, and balances power so no person or party can have absolute power over the rest. Republican government allows many leaders to speak with one voice—not one voice to speak for the many.

But people are flawed, so a Republican government of the people is not perfect. A republic's flaw is a spoils system. It was spoils that infected the South American Republics, and it’s the core issue we face today. A spoils system uses executive patronage to concentrate power. Political parties seek to align the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to advance the interests of the few while ignoring the interests of the many. Governments infected with spoiled power elect leaders who are entitled, incompetent, and corrupt. It leads nations to war and divides them from within.

But don’t be afraid. America has been infected with spoils before and survived, most notably during the Antebellum period and Gilded Age. While some may call for a revolution, we only need a little reform.

As your President, I will champion the cause of congressional reform, but I alone cannot solve our problems. In a republic such as ours, the supreme power is with you, the American people. So go out and find the next generation of American leaders. Those who understand America’s virtue and sin, those who are inspired by her progress, and not distracted by her setbacks. Support them and lift them above the noise of negativity. Elect new Representatives who support reform and understand how to write law.

If you fulfill your responsibility, I promise to fulfill mine and execute the laws written. Together, we can write the next chapter in the American Republic, advance the cause of liberty, and secure freedom for the next generation.

I hope you enjoyed my fictional speech. I’ve spent a lot of time speaking with citizens at coffee shops, breweries, and doors. And I know how concerned they are about our future. But I have also spent time with the next generation, and I can tell you the future is bright. So, if you are down on America, don’t be. Seek out those who have taken the time to learn about her, those who will forgive her flaws and help her grow. Invest in local leaders and ignore those grasping for power.

Donald Trump wants to join Grover Cleveland as the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. It didn’t go well for Cleveland; his second term ended with an economic depression that swept the Democrats out of office and changed the party from conservative to progressive.

As exciting as it might be for Trump to repeat Cleveland’s victory, it may not end as he imagines.  Cleveland presided over the Panic of 1893, one of the most severe financial crises in the history of the United States.  Industrial production fell by 15.3%, and unemployment rose to 19%.  

There are several similarities between late 19th-century politics and our own. Tariffs were a major issue; there were debates over soft vs hard currency and government-subsidized selected industries. 

During the Benjamin Harrison administration (1889-1893), sandwiched between Cleveland’s two terms, the extreme McKinley tariffs of 1890 were enacted, railroads and silver mining were subsidized, and big money was spent, making this period the first “Billion Dollar Congress.” The goal with silver was to create a soft money policy, leading to greater governmental spending flexibility. It was these policies that, in part, enabled the Panic.  The high tariffs caused a depression in Europe, drying up export markets.  The subsidization of industries led to excess capacity and the eventual failure of railroads and silver mines. 

The National Review, New York Times, and the Federalist make many comparisons between Trump and Cleveland. However, Harrison and Trump are both protectionists who support soft money (Harrison silver and Trump crypto) and government-selected subsidies, while Cleveland was a free trader who preferred hard currency.

So, as much as Trump would like to be Cleveland in terms of elections, he is actually more like Harrison on policy. Cleveland once stated, “Though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.” It’s hard to imagine Trump making this pronouncement. And in terms of temperament, the two could not be more different.  Cleveland eschewed the spotlight and believed his role was to enact laws from Congress. Trump craves constant attention and makes liberal use of executive orders. 

What does this mean for a possible second Trump term? Cleveland handled the economic crisis with moderation and patience. How would Trump handle a crisis? We need not speculate; we already know. 

Read more

While campaigning for the ungovernable vote at the Libertarian Convention, Donald Trump appeared on Timcast IRL with Tim Pool. In the interview, Tim asks Trump about immigration, the possibility of WWIII, prosecuting corruption, and pardoning Julian Assange. 

Trump is an active communicator, so as is his nature; he talks a lot and says very little. He uses emotion to illustrate his points instead of facts.  Sometimes, he rushes from point to point and can be difficult to follow. However, Tim has a quick mind and a sharp tongue and was up for the task.

Tim comes out of the gate asking about immigration. He wants to know how Trump plans to carry out the largest deportation effort in history. Trump rambles about immigration and fails to answer the question. Tim jumps in and redirects him, asking for specifics about deportation. Trump briefly answers, saying that it will be largely local police carrying out the deportation, then quickly moves on to complimenting law enforcement.

While Trump answers Tim’s question, he doesn’t provide any substantial specifics. Trump mentioned President Eisenhower and how he largely stopped illegal immigration, referencing “Operation Wetback” a program overseen by the Eisenhower administration after President Truman’s Commission on Migratory Labor determined low wages were caused by illegal immigration in the Southwest.

“Operation Wetback” was carried out by a combination of federal, state, and local agencies while having the backing of the Mexican government, labor groups, and Mexican-American civil rights groups. To balance the loss of the illegal workforce, the government increased legal immigration under the Bracero Program. However, the large increase in applicants created a backlog. The operation relied heavily on self-deportations, and those who self-deported were eligible to return legally. The operation was called a success at the time, but after the Bracero Program expired in 1964, illegal immigration rose.  

Does Trump plan to increase the amount of legal immigration with the deportations as Eisenhower did? Does that mean legislation and hiring more federal employees to carry it out?

Read more