Just as the dust of the United States’ Global War on Terror has begun to settle, the scope has once again shifted South. What’s old is new again, and as of recently, that is the Trump administration’s hard stance on Venezuela. Doubling down on their position to fight the influx of drugs entering the country, Nicolás Maduro has been painted as the Manuel Noriega of 2025. Maduro’s socialist regime in Venezuela has repeatedly been labeled a ‘narco-state’, accusing Maduro himself of heading the Venezuelan Cartel de los Soles.

The political tension between Washington and Caracas culminated in several strikes on Venezuelan drug boats over the last few months. As more information was released concerning these strikes, many were troubled over a potential war crime where a particular ship was struck twice, targeting and killing stranded survivors at sea. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, among others involved in this attack, has been under scrutiny regarding the second strike. Despite this recent controversy, the Trump administration’s posture towards Venezuela and narcotics trafficking in general has received relatively popular support.

Unfortunately, the entirety of Trump’s position on fighting narcotics has been undermined by his December 1st pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández. After having served only a year of his 45-year sentence for aiding cartels in smuggling over 400 tons of cocaine into the United States, Hernández was released from the Hazelton Penitentiary in West Virginia. At first glance, this seems to be blatant hypocrisy from the Trump administration, leaving many confused regarding the President’s motives. Taking a step back and looking at the United States’ historic involvement in South America and the recent targeting of Venezuela paints a clearer picture of the reasoning behind the selective support of narco-states in our backyard.

Selective Pressure

Venezuela and Honduras are not the only countries in South America exploited by the power of cartels. Countries like Brazil and Bolivia have historically struggled to fight the narco-state dynamic in their governments, while others like Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador also contend with a strong cartel presence. What spares some countries from the United States’ crosshairs and not others has always been and continues to be their political ideology.

Corruption can be found in all corners of the world, regardless of what ideology the government claims to adopt. What dictates the United States’ stance on a country in South America is how aligned they are with ours, not the extent of corruption or even how many drugs they smuggle into our country. Unlike Honduras, since Hugo Chávez began to transition Venezuela towards socialism in 1999, they have maintained close ties and support from Western-opposed regimes like China and Cuba. This anti-Western bloc has extended a lifeline to Venezuela in the form of economic support and essential human assets from China and Cuba, respectively. A quick read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis will demonstrate how dangerous this relationship can be from an American perspective.

As of recently, the Trump administration has made Nicolás Maduro Public Enemy No.1. The State Department has long accused Maduro of rigging the 2024 election, while more recently claiming he heads the Cartel de Los Soles and has blurred the lines between the Venezuelan military and the criminal organization. Since early September, the United States has launched over 20 strikes on Venezuelan drug boats, resulting in over 80 deaths. On Dec. 10, the US seized a sanctioned Venezuelan tanker carrying over 1 million barrels of oil. Since Trump’s anti-Venezuelan rhetoric took the spotlight in September, the administration has shown no signs of slowing down. President Trump has made it clear that the United States’ goal is to pressure Maduro to step down and turn Venezuela over to the US-backed opposition party led by the snuffed out 2024 election winner Edmundo González and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado.

The Bigger Picture

If Venezuela has been socialist and known to be smuggling narcotics into the United States since the late 90s, what has sparked this sudden prioritization in policy from the Trump administration? The answer to that lies not in Venezuela, but in the resource-rich Eastern half of Guyana, known as Essequibo. This region of Guyana has long been disputed between the two nations, but since 1899, it has been internationally recognized as Guyanese territory.

In 2015, ExxonMobil discovered massive oil and gas deposits in the Essequibo region. Production began in late 2019 and has catapulted Guyana into the world’s fastest-growing economy. From essentially no oil production prior to 2019, the country now produces over 900,000 barrels of oil per day, with estimates reaching 1.7 million per day by 2030. For almost 200 years, Venezuela has claimed the Essequibo territory as its own, but since ExxonMobil’s recent discovery of oil and gas deposits in the region, the Maduro regime has taken an especially adamant stance on its claim to ownership. Over the years, Venezuela’s economy has reached new lows with hefty American sanctions, while thousands now flee to Essequibo in search of job opportunities.

Over the last several years, Venezuela has seen its claims of the Guyanese region ignored by the international community. Potentially due to economic desperation, Maduro began posturing to invade the resource-rich region of Essequibo. Over the last year, Venezuela has begun constructing military infrastructure, amassing troops, and conducting combat exercises along the Guyanese border. In hopes of maintaining peace in our backyard, as well as protecting American company ExxonMobil’s assets in the region, Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to Guyana earlier this year. During his March trip, Rubio pledged the United States’ commitment to Guyanese sovereignty, stating, “There will be consequences for aggressive actions.”

Since then, the United States has furthered sanctions against Venezuelan oil, with China strengthening economic relations in response. For the last two decades, Venezuela has remained China’s strongest ally in South America. The communist state has poured over $60 billion in foreign direct investment and loans into Venezuela since 2007, creating a strong relationship that could quickly become a geopolitical threat to the United States. As Venezuela further depends on Chinese and Cuban support to cushion the blow of Western sanctions, threatens regional stability through a potential invasion of a sovereign nation, and continues to smuggle narcotics into America through Maduro’s Cartel de Los Soles, it is easy to see why the Trump administration chose the harsh course of action that it did.

Honduran Dilemma

While the Venezuelan position may be easy to understand, what puzzled many was his decision to pardon the convicted drug trafficker serving a 45-year sentence, Juan Orlando Hernández. The former President of Honduras was found guilty in a New York courtroom in early 2024 for accepting millions of dollars in bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel for over two decades, as well as aiding narcotraffickers in smuggling over 400 tons of cocaine from Honduras into the United States. Despite the American justice system handing Hernández a 45-year sentence, President Trump personally pardoned him. Without some context regarding Honduran Presidential elections, you may be wondering why the President of the United States would do such a thing.

Last month, the Honduran general election was declared a tie between former Vice President Salvador Nasralla and Trump-backed right-wing candidate Nasry Asfura. On brand with his sentiment towards prior American elections, Trump backed Asfura’s claims that election fraud was the reason he has not been announced as the new President of Honduras. Despite independent verification confirming fraud is not present, Trump wasted no time inviting Nasry Asfura to his club of election fraud victims. The President has not shied away in the slightest from endorsing Asfura and labeling his opponents as “communists” and puppets of “Maduro and his Narcoterrorists.” Ironically, longtime narcotrafficker and Trump pardonee Juan Orlando Hernández, also widely accused of winning his re-election by fraud, belongs to the same right-wing party as current Trump endorsee Nasry Asfura. His pardon was grouped together with Asfura’s endorsement in a post on Truth Social, even going as far as saying “needed aid” would only be given to the Honduran people if Asfura were elected president.

If Hernández and Asfura both belong to the party of recent historical corruption, drug trafficking, and actual election fraud, why is the President of the United States pardoning and endorsing them as the Honduran beacons of democracy? What once again appears to be blatant hypocrisy can be explained by geopolitical context. Similar to Venezuela, Honduras has quickly strengthened economic and political ties with China since 2023, while simultaneously moving away from trade with Taiwan. Through foreign investment and infrastructure development, Honduras has been a recent addition to China’s Latin and South American umbrella of influence. Which candidate supports a redirection in Chinese relations and believes Honduras was “100 times better off” when it had relations with Taiwan? That would be Nasry “Tito” Asfura.

James Monroe’s Legacy

Despite its age, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 is very much still alive and kicking in our foreign policy. This presidential declaration from James Monroe forbade outside powers from interfering with or expanding their influence in the United States’ Western Hemisphere. While the Trump administration may justify its actions in South America by claiming they’re defending the country from narcoterrorists, the real motive lies in the same fight for regional influence. Since the end of World War II, the United States has pursued global hegemony through these spheres of influence around the world. The long list of proxy wars we fought in the following decades is a testament to how important we saw this goal. In 2025, we are no longer contending with the Soviet Union, but with China.

As the communist state reaches around the globe, establishing its influence through economic partnership and an offer of an anti-Western world order, the United States scrambles to contend in any way it can. We benefit greatly from our relationship with our only two neighbors, but as much as our security has been a priority up north, maintaining influence further south has also been a staple of American foreign policy since the 1800s. Venezuela and Honduras are perfect examples of how that lives on today. President Trump’s recent narco-state crackdown is not a moral crusade against corruption and drug trafficking, but a continuation of a two-century-old doctrine that will exempt those who align with us and make examples out of those who do not.

Thank you for reading. Please visit our website for more articles and information about our mission.

Boots in Washington

As 2025 draws to a close, clusters of National Guard troops stand on Washington’s street corners, bracing against the winter chill, idle in their fatigues. With no clear sense of mission or priority, they appear bored—but their presence is quite intentional. President Trump has ordered them into the nation’s capital as part of a broader, highly visible deployment across several major U.S. cities, primarily those run by vocal Democrats. The White House says their aim is to bolster ICE operations and deter crime. The practical effect is political theater, reviving a tactic Trump first experimented with during the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020.

The 2020 Experiments

In 2020, a caustic mix of pandemic isolation, racial tension, and cultural virality materialized in widespread semi-violent protests across the country. President Trump sought a hardline response to these protests and rolled out a series of bold interventions. One early experiment saw masked three-letter agency officers in Portland leaping from unmarked vans to snatch protestors—an approach that generated confusion and fear, but little public order. Seeking a more reliable law-enforcement presence, many governors soon turned to their own National Guard units to help manage the unrest.

The president took things a step further. Invoking Section 502(f) of Title 32 of the U.S. Code—a statute historically used for disaster relief and border emergencies—he sought a novel way to mobilize the country’s Guard units. He mustered troops from states willing to supply them and deployed them into other states that had not necessarily requested their presence. Legal scholars immediately flagged the maneuver as an exploitation of a statute never intended for routine domestic policing. Yet, because the law lacked explicit prohibitions, Trump pushed forward. Some states signaled a mixed reaction while others welcomed the assistance.

This untested intervention was a relief to many defense officials as Trump had initially threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act. This would have granted him a legal avenue for his initial appetite: to deploy warfighting troops from the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division against protesting citizens. He was dissuaded from doing so by then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, a Trump ally at the time, who advised strongly against such a wanton and unusual use of federal power on U.S. soil.

Trump fired Esper in November of that year. He has since referred to President Trump’s national security instincts as “illegal and dangerous,” and “inclined [toward fascism],” joining an ever-growing chorus of former national security officials who have expressed dire concern over Trump’s use of the military as a tool of personal power rather than one of constitutional obligation.

Several states—including California, Illinois, and Oregon—wanted no part of Trump’s Title 32 experiment and pursued court injunctions on Tenth Amendment grounds. Among other rights, this Amendment reserves general policing authority to the states, giving them primary domain over public health and safety. For more than two centuries, courts have repeatedly affirmed this division, one that is constitutionally rooted in state sovereignty. Still, it is not absurd to think that the federal government should wish to intervene in truly extraordinary circumstances. To determine how extraordinary those circumstances must be, presidents of yesteryear have sought to faithfully interpret the framers of the Constitution, reinforcing time-honored norms of restraint.

The D.C. Prototype

Like in Chicago and Portland, Mayor Muriel Bowser sought to independently handle the relatively mild protests taking place in her city: the nation’s capital. Unlike Chicago and Portland, however, Washington, D.C. lacked the protection of state sovereignty. Preying on this vulnerability, the president swung his cudgel of power. He ‘Trumped’ Bowser, overriding her wishes and exploiting a vaguery in the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military personnel from interfering in domestic law enforcement. By borrowing non-federalized National Guard units from ‘red states’ to occupy the capital without the local government’s consent, he found a way to turn state militias into a traveling show of his individual will.

The Fair Context

Morally speaking, there was a genuine case to be made for military intervention (in cities that welcomed it) to help quell riots that amounted to as much as $2 billion in insured property damages and dozens of deaths. Many Democratic leaders at the time were taking the appropriate steps to try to restore order, but many of their public-facing spokespeople seemed woefully inept at relaying this commitment to the public. Their messaging often appeared ambivalent or timid in condemning the chaos. Moderates recoiled from rhetoric that imparted a noble cause on those who flipped cars and burned businesses. Too few Democrats could effectively condemn fashionable “ACAB” sentiments that were sweeping through their ranks and voter base. Systemic racism became a popular scapegoat for many of the ills in American society, and the right furrowed its brow. It was rational to be frustrated by this apathetic leadership.

Kyle Rittenhouse was arrogant, naïve, and reckless when he traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin, hoping to intimidate rioters and ultimately killing two men who attacked him. Yet when many prominent voices on the left reduced his legally credible self-defense claim to nothing other than racist vigilantism, he predictably sought refuge among those eager to defend him. He found this warm embrace in the arms of right-wing Christofascists, grifters, and white nationalists, and soon built a lucrative new persona as a sort of mascot for their beliefs. In addition to supporting the ugly-but-valid merits of his legal defense, his new tribe subscribes to a constellation of much more sinister theocratic beliefs. These beliefs are incompatible with American Liberalism, and seem to be making a comeback in Trump-adjacent circles.

In many ways, Rittenhouse’s story is the story of the millions of voters who took up ranks for Trump in 2024. When the stewards of liberal democracy appear too ideologically captured to defend basic notions of order, right-wing demagogues most certainly will, bringing the rest of their ghoulish authoritarian ideas with them. We don’t get to pick and choose this political baggage, and America has a tendency to over-correct for its weaknesses.

Prototype Becomes Standard

Now, more than five years later, National Guard troops patrol D.C. again—but not in response to riots or a pandemic. Their official assignment is to deter crime and support federal and local law enforcement in a city whose violent crime rate has been trending downward for years. Their unofficial task is patently political, patently Trumpian. It’s a humiliation ritual designed to show force and political domination over Mayor Bowser, the same mayor who opposed him half a decade ago.

While the situation is largely playing out the same way in Washington, what’s new is Trump’s partnership with Texas Governor Greg Abbott. Together, they have used state militias to intervene in Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago: all cities that explicitly oppose these deployments. This is a profound escalation: the president and a governor are effectively colluding to use one state’s armed forces to intimidate and gain leverage over other sovereign states. It tells the nation that no state is as sovereign as law and tradition would suppose—that a president may humiliate or override opposition leaders without invoking any formal emergency. It’s a message to all other governors and mayors across America: “If you fail to flatter, submit, or bend your institutions to the president’s liking, this could be your city next.”

A Sandbox for Power

It’s hardly relevant to debate the public safety merits of these Guard deployments. They almost certainly do make the neighborhoods they occupy safer from outbursts of street crime. They’re just a grotesquely expensive and inefficient method of doing so, and have little to do with “cleaning up” these affected cities long-term. What matters is that these operations are more about experimentation. They’re about creating a sandbox environment where the president can probe the outer limits of his authority, testing strategies that realize the quasi-legal, absolute limits of his power. They’re about studying how the courts, Congress, and the public will respond to the latest encroachment. They’re about seeing who will try to stop him, and how, so he can dodge those obstacles in some bolder act down the road.

Right now, it seems to be his favorite weapon against those whom he cannot simply fire. It is the kind of maneuver we have come to expect from him: a leader defined by his willingness to stress-test the norms and laws that serve as the guardrails of our democratic republic. Our laws alone are nothing without our traditions of restraint, built over generations, that have sustained a relatively stable Pax Americana since the end of the Second World War. If those norms collapse under force or neglect, laws become as malleable as dough.

Admittedly, Trump is only the latest in a series of presidents who have incrementally stretched executive power through aggressive interpretations of law, strategic appointments, and unilateral orders. But he is the first to openly treat that erosion of constraints as a political performance. He is certainly the first “conservative” to invent such shockingly oppressive new styles of government overreach. Does it get any more obvious than boots on the ground? His goal seems not only to wield the executive branch how he alone sees fit, but to normalize its limitless use.

Even if you support his policies now, ask yourself: Are you prepared for every tactic used today to become the playbook of any president who follows him?

The Seditious Six

In November, six Democratic lawmakers, all of whom have served in our nation’s armed forces, released a brief video reminding U.S. military personnel of their oath. There are several different versions of this oath, but they all say the same thing: that military personnel are to defend the U.S. Constitution and obey the orders of their superiors, so long as those orders are legal. In response, President Trump took to branding these lawmakers the “Seditious Six,” and publicly flirted with the idea of capital punishment. I watched the video repeatedly, prying for some subversive, treasonous message. There wasn’t one.

By this point, we should know better than to feign surprise at such a brazen misrepresentation, such a callous and ghastly retort from the leader of the Western world. Trump knows that he wields the power to whip his devotees into a frenzy, that with a few keystrokes he can credibly endanger the lives of six veteran lawmakers for the crime of publicly reiterating a job description. He knows his words and actions paint real-life targets on people. He proved his willingness to demonstrate this ability on occasions like the violent January 6th insurrection, and when he pulled John Bolton’s security detail as one of the very first official acts of this second term. The implied message is obvious: loyalty to one’s most faithful reading of the Constitution is sedition if it stands in the way of Trump’s personal ambitions. At what point can Trump’s illegal, immoral, norm-shattering behavior threaten the willingness of Republicans in Congress to enable such a leader?

Seeking Courage

Members of Congress swear the same oath as the “Seditious Six.” Would reminding them of that fact warrant your execution? Is there a GOP spine left in Washington willing to remain accountable to the law of the land? When their “Don” is no longer in power, they may find that it was a mistake to untether themselves from everything it means to be lawful, traditional, and, well, conservative.

As of now, the president’s National Guard orders remain in The Twilight Zone. These orders are too abnormal to ignore, but apparently not illegal enough to provoke decisive checks from Trump’s legion of groveling enablers in the DoD, DoJ, and Congress. But we know from history, including the repudiation of “just following orders” after the My Lai massacre and the Nuremberg Trials, that legality in military conduct is not defined by senior approval alone. We require our troops to serve the Constitution with knowledge and conscience, not blind obedience.

We as citizens must serve our country with that same discipline. Only we get to decide when the goal post has been moved too far.

Thank you for reading. Please visit our website for more articles and information about our mission.

The blue wave

Coming out of the 2025 state election cycle, many Americans were excited to see a Democratic wave take the country by storm. In Virginia, the future of Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger’s administration brings hope to the state after the friction of a split government for the past few years. Spanberger has made her name as a face of moderate politics, with an appealing and digestible message of compromise and dignity. She won the general election with over 500,000 more votes than her challenger, flipping Virginia’s executive branch from red to blue.

With the upcoming 2026 midterms, Democrats desperately need this momentum to endure. After making national headlines by flipping the state, Governor-elect Spanberger’s administration will be a test of this moderate and popular wave of the Democratic Party, with voters watching from across the country. After sweeping the election and becoming the first woman to win the Virginia gubernatorial race, the pressure is on for Spanberger’s administration to keep the goodwill of moderate voters heading into the 2026 midterm elections. This survival will be critical for Democrats to flip Congress, one of the only options for reigning in President Trump’s iron-fisted leadership. To accomplish this, her administration must rely on staying true to policy promises and executing new policy ideas whose benefits voters can clearly measure and feel.

Policies

In the current political setting, the economy and affordability are front of mind for most Virginians. At rallies, donor events, and online, Spanberger made this a cornerstone of her campaign, giving speeches that promised to continue investing in Virginia’s economic well-being. This, in conjunction with a promise to promote affordable housing initiatives, should be a primary goal of her administration. Policies could include incentivizing the construction of affordable homes, eliminating the car tax, or lowering prescription drug costs by reigning in pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs). These goals might be aiming high, but with a unified state executive and legislature, they are certainly achievable.

Another issue pressing Virginians has been the extensive layoffs of federal workers across Northern Virginia. Virginia is home to over 320,000 federal workers, and even more who work on government contracts. Many small businesses and restaurants have grown to rely on federal employees and have built economic ecosystems dependent on that upstream flow of income. With so many in our Commonwealth now struggling from federal layoffs, the new administration must work to cushion the blow, or else committees stand to face an economic crisis. To mitigate these effects, Spanberger’s team should support workforce development and explore options for more diverse employment opportunities for former federal employees. By diversifying careers and income flow in Northern Virginia’s communities, stable economic stimulation can revive communities hit hard by these immense federal layoffs, both for individuals and businesses.

Another concern for families is education, something Spanberger has also promised to act on. While she supports investing in public education and opposes private school voucher programs, there is an opportunity that could be her key to success. In Newport News, VA, An Achievable Dream Academy (AAD) is accomplishing something innovative and fascinating by providing a publicly funded, high-quality education to the most disadvantaged inner-city students. With a 100% graduation rate and testing scores that outperform other schools, this model can be replicated to help solve the crisis of education inequity that plagues our communities. Spanberger’s team should investigate policy methods for expanding this type of program across the state to invest in our most economically disadvantaged communities and build a stronger future for Virginians. The answer to education inequity is hanging fruit in a formula laid out clearly by AAD; all the state needs to do is take it.

One last thing to note: this year, the Democratic-held Virginia House now has the political dominance needed to propose and pass a constitutional amendment for Virginia that would codify abortion and birth control access across the Commonwealth. While this policy initiative lives in the legislature, the executive will also likely gain political points if the amendment is a success. With the blue wave this election season, Virginia Democrats have a clear pathway for delivering on their longstanding promise of protecting healthcare access and preventing future abortion bans in the state. This policy is generally popular in Virginia and may end up on the ballot for a referendum vote in the coming years, likely carrying Governor-elect Spanberger’s support.

The bottom line

Above all, Governor-elect Spanberger’s administration has set a high bar on the campaign trail, with many promises to deliver for Virginians. Many of her voters will be watching their wallets and their news outlets closely for evidence that she has delivered on her policy ideas. With a Democratic majority in the state government, there are very few at the state level that could stop the administration from delivering impactful solutions. We have faith that Spanberger will act with a powerful and steady hand, providing policy solutions that we can see and feel as regular Virginians, especially if Democrats wish to continue the momentum of a blue wave into the 2026 midterm cycle. Democrats currently have an upper hand on the GOP, but if they disappoint, Virginia and the national election could easily flip back to red and continue the unified MAGA front, a shortcoming the Democrats and the country cannot afford.

Democrats scored big this November with sweeping wins across the nation– from New Jersey and New York to Virginia, California, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and more. And unlike what Speaker Mike Johnson claimed, these were not solely wins in Democratic states and Democratic cities; these wins are indicative of a movement against Trumpism and towards change. From moderate winners exemplified by Governor-elects Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, to democratic-socialist Zohran Mamdani, this election cycle had it all. This push for new blood at the helm of state and local-level leadership shows that the country is ready to protect human rights and combat the lunacy of Trump’s second term in office. The November 2025 elections should be a sign of hope for a shift in the political atmosphere in the United States. However, the momentum should not cease here. Our democracy depends on this being the jumping-off point for change, not the epitome of “what could have been.” This election broke historic records, but this is no time for being complacent.

While I was sitting at home waiting for the results of the Virginia gubernatorial election, I was optimistic that former House Rep. Abigail Spanberger would secure the win. And win she did. I was filled with joy seeing the result of one of the most highly publicized elections in our Commonwealth’s history- even more so when she mentioned that the time is now for “pragmatism, not partisanship.” Pragmatism is not only what Virginia needs, but what the whole nation needs. Spanberger exudes this idea with her leadership style. She advocates for not just individual autonomy and freedom, but for keeping Virginia communities safe. She brings both sides together in her approach, and I hope this continues through her time as governor. In this light, it is vital to realize that our nation is being controlled by a power-hungry president who encourages the opposite– being partisan and having enemies. I am extremely proud to have met Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger on numerous occasions and believe that the next state session will bring laws that make the lives of all Virginians better and safer. I believe in her and her mission, but I also believe that our federal government, the people we elect directly to the U.S. Congress, needs to step up as well.

Recently, the longest shutdown in our nation’s history ended after 44 days. This “exemplary” behavior from our government demonstrates that change is necessary, and the fight is not yet over. We must pressure all of our federal lawmakers to push back against Trump and to enact legislation that helps the many, not the elite few. We need to push our elected officials to address the immigration crisis, both the treatment of immigrants and the securing of our border. We should also pressure our leaders to reform our education system and tackle the national debt. When we ignore these problems, we don’t just harm specific communities; we weaken the foundation of our entire democracy. These are not fringe concerns; they’re central to whether our system works for everyone or just a privileged few. Seeing new leaders win elections across the country is one step further to having our democracy change for the best, but fixing our nation’s preeminent problems does not end there.

I was overwhelmed with happiness seeing the results just a few short days ago. I am not saying that we need a blue wave of politicians to win across the nation for me to be happy (although I am certainly not convinced that that would be a bad thing for the country right now). However, what I am arguing for is for those who were elected to step up. Fight for the policies you ran on to help the people you are responsible for live better lives. Do not back down from a challenge because you are scared to piss off the MAGA Republicans. Encourage your team and the politicians who look to your leadership to work with the other side of the aisle to help all constituents, not just those who voted for you. We are in this precarious situation today because many Americans felt lost and unaccepted as a result of impractical and poor leadership. My hope is that the leaders elected on November 4th change this narrative and continue a movement across the nation to elect leaders who want positive, pragmatic change that actually helps, not a grandiose idea that few benefit from (and that is achieved through bullying).

The state of our democracy is truly in our hands. If we can elect (hopeful) change makers across the nation in an off-year, then I am certain we can elect many more in the midterms and get rid of the MAGA filibuster on American political thought, rhetoric, and policies. Fight not with violence but with your words, with your vote, and with strong policy ideas that encourage people that the United States can once again be a country with integrity. On a closing note: real change happens when a few ordinary people with brilliant, yet simple, ideas come together to create a meaningful impact. It is our duty to elect these people, and it should be our mission to help them and hold them accountable once they are elected. Be hopeful with what has happened, but do not settle for mediocre performance.

Learn more about The Thomas Paine Society by visiting our website or connect with us on LinkedIn.

Political contention in the United States is almost exclusively viewed through the lens of red versus blue. Bolstered by the ideological entrenchment of our two parties, countless Americans who hunger for pragmatic and sensible leadership are left politically homeless. According to a 2024 Gallup poll, a staggering 43% of Americans self-identify as Independents. This number absolutely dwarfs the 27% who identify as Democrats and the 27% who identify as Republicans.

Despite making up the largest percentage of voters, Independents are left without a brand or movement to rally behind. The invigorating and energizing political activity is found solely in the extremist bodies of our political system. Radical agendas backed by self-interested “representatives” in our government are eroding our nation’s integrity, not only devolving it into one governed by whoever can write the biggest check, but also into one governed by the least qualified. Meanwhile, the average American seeking reasonable solutions to the pressing issues we face as a nation is often left cynical regarding their faith in politicians unwilling to partake in cross-aisle compromise. Our two-party system has become so ideologically entrenched that bipartisan cooperation and pragmatism are seemingly invisible, leaving Independents and moderates without a voice.

Entrenchment of the Two Parties

Since Donald Trump’s dark-horse victory in the 2016 Presidential Election, personal slander and blind party allegiance have become commonplace in the United States. Both sides throw political violence and democratic doomsday allegations against the other, which the public has clearly grown tired of. In 2016, Donald Trump branded himself as the common man. Despite his billions, his rhetoric and verbiage resembled that of the average American, not that of the traditional, refined politician in our country. Some saw it as refreshing, but it was undeniably effective in the quick debate format that farmed ‘gotcha’ clips for campaigning.

Long-form debate based on policy issues can no longer be found in the same way we saw in past elections. Emotional buzzwords and demonizing candidates have replaced that, only furthering the already partisan political system in our country. Mainstream media has fueled this divide in unprecedented ways. It is now common knowledge that the most popular news stations are politically biased and filled with propaganda. Independent journalism is a dying breed, fighting to stay alive as multi-billion-dollar corporations continue to reign supreme.

The political divide in this country is at a record high. As many as 80% of voters say our country is greatly divided on our most important issues. The label of ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ being slapped on someone today seems to have the same effect that ‘communist’ did in the 1950s. Our social media algorithms bombard us with like-minded content that doesn’t challenge our perspective and creates personal echo chambers. Our nation’s politicians should be setting the example, not fueling the fire. If you can have a civil conversation with your coworker or colleague, maybe even agree on fundamental key values or issues, why can’t the career public servants we entrust with our nation do the same?

The Isolation of Moderate Voters

Despite how the media portrays the divide in this country, the majority of Americans do not fit neatly into either political party. Those who fall towards the moderate ends of the parties, or who are entirely between them, are often left without prominent representation, unlike the extreme right and left. Compromise doesn’t get clicks, so it doesn’t get coverage. Closed primaries that result in the extremes of both sides produce what we too commonly see as having to pick the ‘lesser of two evils’. This speaks to the true sentiment of the majority of Americans who lack representation on the most influential stages. You will find bipartisanship in the House, sometimes even the Senate, but the media doesn’t promote it, and neither does party leadership. CNN and Fox News would rather spend time creating “expert” panels that sow division and spread propaganda, while Democratic and Republican party leadership whip anyone seeking to caucus with opposing party members back toward the party line. Bipartisan compromise is not defeat or a surrender of your values; it’s a necessity to function in a democratic society.

Unfortunately, the power and influence in our current two-party system reside almost exclusively in those two parties. Closed primaries are often dominated by the most active and extreme voters of that party, in turn producing the most extreme politician as the nominee. By the time independents get the chance to vote, the results are already polarized, leaving them to pick the lesser of two evils in the general election. Issues such as closed primaries, combined with others like gerrymandering, produce enormous systemic barriers for independent or moderate candidates to gain influence and win elections. Even if they win the uphill battle of getting elected, they now lack the structural caucuses and party machinery that enable Democrats and Republicans to sustain their influence.

Political organizations and media outlets often view independents as unpredictable, which they find unappealing to audiences and donors. Few are dedicated to representing pragmatism and bipartisanship that would benefit our country. Without organized representation, momentum can’t build fast and consistently enough to compete with the two parties that currently and historically have dominated politics.

Moderates and independents make up a large share of polling data but lack the institutional support to make a visible impact. Extremism consistently has a brand in politics, whereas pragmatic moderate policies do not. This large electorate is just as fired up as the extremist wings of the left and right are, but there is no organized outlet for support and opportunity. Similar to how Republicans have embraced ‘Make America Great Again’, there is no rallying cry for the politically homeless moderates. What often results is disillusioned, nihilistic, and cynical voters who lack representation in our system.

When voters feel neither party represents their best interests and systemic barriers obstruct the representatives they resonate with, they disengage from politics entirely. Furthermore, when all the average American sees on the news or social media is how hostile and partisan our government representatives are, it continues to push them away. With fewer moderates engaging in politics and making their voice heard, a vacuum forms that political extremists capitalize on. A lack of visible moderate leadership and low voter turnout among moderates only continues to make the parties more extreme, creating a self-reinforcing loop that further isolates the center.

The consequence is the political system we find ourselves in now. Gridlock has replaced governance, and bipartisan cooperation is punished instead of rewarded. When this is all the public sees come out of politics, cynicism and democratic fatigue worsen. A democracy with unbalanced representation and a frustrated, isolated majority should be cause for concern for anyone moderately paying attention.

Extremism Has a Brand, Pragmatism Does Not

Whether you agree or disagree with the recent populist rise of Trump’s “conservatism” in America, what you cannot discredit is the marketing ability to garner such a passionate supporter base. The crafting of a patriotic and effective slogan in ‘Make America Great Again,’ combined with divisive policies that evoke strong emotion, enabled the Republican Party to fuel outrage and establish a powerful movement behind the Right. Though the Democratic Party has attempted to replicate this formula, choosing unpopular liberal policies as the hill to die on has prevented them from being competitive in recent elections. Emotional outrage, whether on the right or left, is way more effective at fueling attention, donations, and nationwide visibility. Pragmatism and compromise lack the emotional appeal that divisive all-or-nothing policies like gun control, abortion, or transgender rights have. What results is all the issues affecting average Americans getting swept under the rug and ignored, later to be exploited by massive corporations lobbying for self-interested change.

Without a comparable political infrastructure to the right and left, moderate politicians struggle to gain traction and media visibility. Pragmatic and moderate solutions don’t often generate the same grassroots enthusiasm to make it onto protest signs, but they should. These values are necessary for effective governance in a democracy, regardless of whether it may seem ‘boring’ in comparison. The majority of Americans already embrace them, but they need to be rallied under a movement to enact real change. A reasonable and charismatic leader who can garner enough support among moderates in our current political system could accomplish this task. Unfortunately, those leaders who have been able to evoke an emotional response from voters only seem to be found in the extremist ends of our two major parties. For a movement seeking to gain traction with reasonable, common-ground solutions, energetic and inspiring figureheads are needed to spearhead that charge.

Currently, pragmatism lacks a national figurehead. We have seen politicians like Abigail Spanberger in Virginia winning elections based on this sentiment at a state level, but we have yet to see that nationally. Spanberger using “pragmatism over partisanship” in her victory speech gives hope for amassing support in the future and setting the stage for a moderate blueprint to winning midterms in 2026. Change will not happen overnight, and it will not happen without the American people taking advantage of the democratic process that allows this change. Midterms could be the first significant step in redirecting our country back towards reason and practicality. Americans are clearly unhappy with the current state of our government. However, the responsibility to elect politicians who are genuinely committed to serving the people lies with the voters, not the candidates. We must remember that democracy is not a spectator sport; it demands our participation and willingness to choose progress over polarization.

Learn more about The Thomas Paine Society by visiting our website or connecting with us on LinkedIn.

Donald Trump will not go down in history as a unifying “President of Peace” as he so dreams of becoming. He has pitted millions of people against him in an effort to seem like the “Great Big Savior” to a lost America. The fact of the matter is that he is no unifying figure, but vilifies people and institutions that go against his core– hatred of those who believe this country can thrive on diverse beliefs, cultures, and livelihoods. His populist politics create a system where the elite are the educated and open-minded, whereas “the people” he serves to protect are those holding on to the facade of a great American pastime– people who would rather have a nation of one idea, one face, and one identity, rather than a nation of many. If he were the true “President of Peace,” he would be embracing differences in opinions and would try to build bridges and bring people together, rather than looking out for his own.

Mr. Trump is notorious for seeing his opposition as his enemies, rather than people with whom he can try to find common ground. When one disagrees with him, they are immediately kicked out of the sacred inner circle. This division is antithetical to what makes a true democracy. Donald Trump’s own movement itself proves this point: Make America Great Again, but for whom? For most, if not all, of the history of the United States, America was “great” for one person– the wealthy white man. While today’s world is far from perfect in terms of inclusion and representation, we have made meaningful progress toward a society where people of all backgrounds can thrive and participate in government. It is disheartening that MAGA not only resists this progress but actively fights to reverse it.

The time is now for a movement to bring unity to the United States and to allow for differences of opinion to be celebrated. It is within these disagreements that real action happens, not just for the few, but for all Americans. We should embrace the idea that we can find common ground through respectful dialogue with the other side as human beings, as Americans. The dangers of Trump and his populist ideology and practices lie within his ability to rile up a prejudiced base that felt lost in an evolving world. He has gained millions of supporters who see him as saving them from an untrustworthy democracy. However, the message he whines to his supporters is not true- it is based on someone who wants to consolidate power and break apart our institutions. If we want to save the United States, rejecting populist Trumpism is the first step.

It is fair to say that the very fabric of our nation has been thrown into a tornado of hysteria and selfishness by those who hold positions of power. However, Trump has taken this to levels that only authoritarians and dictators admire. A national movement to fight against Trumpism and bring back the dignity of our nation at home and abroad is our only hope. We must bring all different ages, cultures, and political ideologies together to show that what Donald Trump rejects is actually what makes America great– diversity of thought and experiences. We are a large, diverse nation, and we must use this fact as a way to unify us, not a way to make enemies. Our nation is at the precipice of becoming an unrecognizable country with one terrible leader at the helm. The time for change is now.

Learn more about The Thomas Paine Society by visiting our website or connecting with us on LinkedIn.

Too often in the current state of American politics do we see party devotion blocking any opportunity for compromise. Whether it is the self-interested prioritization of their own financial gain, or the stubborn inability to concede even secondary or tertiary priorities to reach a middle-ground consensus, bipartisanship in our country is too few and far between. The shining exception to this polarizing trend in Congress remains the Problem Solvers Caucus, co-led by Pennsylvania’s 1st District Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R) and New York’s 3rd District Representative Tom Suozzi (D).

Founded in 2017 through the efforts of No Labels, the Problem Solvers Caucus (PSC) has been committed to its gridlock-breaking agenda in Congress ever since. As of October 2025, there are 23 Republicans and 26 Democrats currently serving on the PSC, with co-chairs from both parties. This near-perfect split of partisanship highlights their values and serves as evidence of their fidelity to them. Since 2019, co-chair Fitzpatrick has not only been ranked first in bipartisanship among all House members, but also received the highest Bipartisanship Index score ever recorded by the Lugar Center since its creation in 2014. For nearly a decade, Brian Fitzpatrick has set the standard for Bipartisan cooperation in Congress.

However, their implementation of aisle-crossing does not stop at the 49 members of the caucus. Since 2017, the PSC has been involved in various key pieces of legislation, including topics such as immigration, infrastructure development, healthcare reform, congressional accountability, and promoting American industry. These efforts reached across the aisle to pull in non-PSC members of both parties to pass what they viewed as common-sense solutions to these issues. One recent example that has inspired bipartisanship in Congress is the introduction and push for the Restore Trust in Congress Act.

Introduced early this year was the Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act, led by PSC co-chair Brian Fitzpatrick (R), and Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D), Cory Mills (R), and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D). This legislation would limit the ability of members of Congress and their immediate family from owning or trading individual stocks. In an attempt to limit conflicts of interest in Congress, this bill sought, as its name implies, to restore the public’s faith in their government representatives.

After struggling to gain traction for some time, the bill was revised and reintroduced as the Restore Trust in Congress Act by Representative Chip Roy (R), alongside the cooperation of sixteen original cosponsors, which still included the likes of Fitzpatrick, Ocasio-Cortez, and Krishnamoorthi. The revision emphasized legal practicality and the ability for consistent enforcement. Now totaling 75 cosponsors, the support for the updated bill shows a stark contrast to the original bill’s eleven cosponsors and exemplifies the PSC’s impact in bridging the partisan gap in Washington.

Speaking about the newly introduced bill in early September, Ocasio-Cortez stated, “I also want to thank Brian Fitzpatrick for some of the work that we’ve done in co-sponsoring our original bill on this.”

“It’s very rare I feel in Washington, that when we bring multiple stakeholders and folks together to negotiate on a bill, that you leave that room feeling like the bill got better … But I genuinely feel in this process that in putting all of our bills together, we’ve actually ended up with a product that is legitimately stronger than the sum of its parts.”

Addressing insider trading in Congress will always be an uphill battle. For at least some of our elected officials to come together and craft legislation that tackles this issue is a significant step toward rebuilding trust in our government. A staggering 85% of Americans say elected officials don’t care what they think. It is not the public that needs to be convinced of bills like this, but rather the representatives themselves.

PSC leadership spearheading this movement represents a much-needed and necessary presence in Washington. In recent years, we have seen more and more extremism and party allegiance that have only further entrenched our polarized political system. Bipartisan efforts that genuinely serve the needs of the American people, rather than the interests of politicians or their ideological party affiliations, are key to fixing our broken system. The Problem Solvers Caucus might just be the template we need for restoring public faith and functionality to our nation’s Congress.

Learn more about The Thomas Paine Society by visiting our website or connecting with us on LinkedIn.

Since 1851, when US Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti interpreted the Antideficiency Act to mean the government should function with limited capabilities during an appropriations expiration, there have been 15 federal shutdowns, including our current one. Government shutdowns are a uniquely American approach, whereas other countries pass short-term or long-term solutions.

In the event of a shutdown, federal agencies are halted, workers go unpaid, and many public services are hindered (FDA food inspection, Veterans’ services, WIC food assistance programs, etc.). Many federal agents are expected to work without receiving pay. President Trump has also threatened layoffs and the elimination of back pay for many of the thousands of employees who have been furloughed.

However, Congressional Representatives and Senators remain financially unaffected. Even in the event of a shutdown, their paychecks are delivered on time, without fail. Americans across the country are negatively affected when our lawmakers are unable to find a budget resolution. It is inappropriate and unjust that while many Americans are furloughed and unpaid, our Congress continues to receive their full salary.

This time around, a few members of Congress have voluntarily withheld their paychecks until the government reopens. South Carolina Representative Ralph Norman has gone as far as to reintroduce a Constitutional Amendment that would bar Congress from receiving a salary in the event of a shutdown and would prohibit their back pay. Two years ago, Representative John James of Mississippi introduced a similar bill that would prohibit members of Congress from being paid during a shutdown.

It is reasonable that if federal employees are expected to work without pay, our elected members of Congress should be held to that same standard. Financial consequences for Congress would incentivize bipartisan collaboration and government efficiency, possibly even avoiding a shutdown altogether. Budget allocation is one of Congress’s most fundamental responsibilities. If they fail to deliver, it should not be expected that their paychecks will continue to be funded by the taxpayers whose stability and livelihoods are threatened. True leadership and representation mean sharing in the consequences of a shutdown, not avoiding them.

Learn more about The Thomas Paine Society by visiting our website or connecting with us on LinkedIn.

Introduction

Reflecting on the 2024 election cycle, there were obvious shortfalls and extreme misguidance that led to a failure for Democratic candidates. Given 107 days, the Harris campaign fell short of garnering enough support to beat Trump’s powerful MAGA cult of personality. Across the country, the GOP gathered House seats, Senate seats, and local offices, leading to a united government pursuing the Project 2025 agenda.

We cannot give all of the credit to the Republican Party’s election tactics and triumphs. The Democratic Party put up a weak fight and made many mistakes that ultimately cost them the 2024 election cycle across the board. These shortcomings have continued past the election as well, with shrinking ratings and fleeing supporters. According to Gallup, the Democratic Party’s ratings have dropped to 34% favorability, a record low dating back to 1992. Another poll from the Wall Street Journal found that 63% of voters viewed the Democratic Party as unfavorable, the lowest it has been in over three decades.

There are many theories as to why the Democratic name has gained unfavorability, including weak branding, an overemphasis on identity politics, and a general sentiment of “spinelessness”. If there is any hope for a future for Democrats, the party must take on an extreme rebranding as we approach the 2026 midterm election cycle. “The high road” branding is not working for Democrats, and the rise of a new tactic: one that is powerful, young, popular, and marketable.

One of the strongest ways to accomplish this is to appeal to moderate, independent voters. This voting body is continuously expanding, and over 40% of eligible voters now identify as independents, with over 60% identifying as “moderate” on the political spectrum. These are the votes that will win elections, and the Democrats must appeal to them, or else face total irrelevancy.

Strategy 1: Ditch Unpopular Policies

One pillar of the Democratic Party that has driven them to failure has been their inability to ditch policies that prove to be unpopular. To win elections, you must win voters. To win voters, you must have attractive policies.

Rethink Immigration Strategy

Following the massive immigration crackdown from the Trump Administration, the Democrats have a unique opportunity to take back popular opinion on the issue. Over 79% of US adults believe immigration is a positive thing, and even the number of Republicans who supported less immigration dropped from 88% to 48%. With a middle ground strategy, the party can reject the previous image of supporting open borders and replace those policies with a median, tough-but-fair immigration strategy. This could mean reforming the system to provide easier pathways for legal citizenship status, while simultaneously embracing more conservative policies like providing more funding for border security and prioritizing national security.

Democrats have an opportunity to win back support on this issue, and if they want to succeed in the midterms, they must act on it.

Redefine Image on Crime Policy

The statistics do not lie. About 81% of voters see crime as a major issue in US cities, and confidence in local police is up to 74% among US adults, holding a majority across all racial demographics.

Admittedly, some Democrats have already listened to voters on this issue, with Democrats in New York, Oregon, and New Mexico all considering or enacting tougher crime legislation in recent years. However, the overall image of the Democratic Party reads as weak on crime, driving away moderate voters who read this issue as pressing. To do this, Democrats should support law enforcement by incentivizing community involvement, identifying hotspots in cities, and focusing on intervention techniques in these locations.

Strategy 2: Total Rebranding

Changing policy strategies will help, but it is not enough to save the Democrats from their downfall. This will instead require aggressive and speedy marketing tactics to rebrand the party.

The Economy Party

The economy was cited as an extremely important issue for 52% of voters in the 2024 election cycle, a high that has not been reached since the 2008 recession. The American people are struggling; they are struggling to pay bills, buy homes, find jobs, and create a financially stable life. If there is one rebrand the Democrats need more than anything, it is to gain back moderate voters and prove to themselves and to Americans that they have what it takes to fix our economy.

Whether or not you agree that the economy thrives more under Democratic leadership, the polling does not lie: Americans trust Republicans more on economic issues. People are being driven towards traditionalism and conservatism because of a culture of unaffordability, joblessness, and widespread unhappiness. For too long, Democrats have been seen as stagnant and at the mercy of prioritizing red tape, failing to deliver on their campaign promises. Democrats stand to gain public support and more votes if they emphasize themselves as financially superior and capable of real economic change.

This means cutting back on overspending and focusing on policies that promote economic prosperity for the country. Moderate voters don’t want to be told “we know you cannot succeed alone, so here is a handout”. Instead, they want to be financially empowered, freed from crippling debt, and hopeful about their economic futures. Democrats must eliminate the idea that throwing money at something will fix it and prioritize real financial metrics. Instead, market as the party for the people, not for billionaires, and bring practical solutions to the table.

If the Democrats cannot successfully rebrand themselves as pragmatic, economy-oriented leaders, they risk continually losing out on the middle ground and swing voters, ultimately contributing to their political demise.

Identity Politics and Sterile Politics

Democrats have been throwing too much energy into representing everyone, so that many voters ultimately feel left behind. As Alyssa Cass, a strategist from Blueprint, puts it, the Democratic agenda reads as “you’re fighting for everyone else other than me.” This is a battle where Republicans have won time and time again. Sterile, high-road politics is not digestible for the average American, and the battle for the most disadvantaged has ultimately been a race to the bottom for Democrats.

Currently, Democrats are not the “cool” party. They often read as polished, elitist, and unappealing to average Americans in general. This is especially relevant for male Gen-Z voters. President Trump performed higher among voters under 30 than any conservative presidential candidate since 2004. The conservatism branding is working, and it’s costing Democrats their relevancy.

If they want to fight back, the appeal must come through a rebrand. Drop the overreliance on identity politics and democracy-downfall scare tactics; they did not work for the Harris campaign, and they drove away moderate voters who remain unconvinced. Focus instead on finding a powerful speaker who can reference issues voters care most about. Advertise as a strong, desirable party, not just the better of two evils (no one is excited to vote in the “At least I’m not that guy!” election, i.e., the 2024 presidential election).

Democrats must drop cringeworthy, outdated tactics, and they must market towards the youth. Go on podcasts, have tough conversations with influencers, and find candidates who understand social media and youth nuance. Find issues that could unite Gen-Z men instead of ostracizing them, and cater towards popular, strong, common sense solutions. If Democrats want to win, they must defend their relevance.

Youth Engagement

The seasonal outreach of Democratic campaigns, with targeted ads and aggressive marketing tactics in the fall (typically ramped up only around three-ish months of the year), has been a failing measure. With the constant newscycle brought on by social media, they need a different strategy. On the other side, conservative voices have found their way into everyday networks such as fitness and entrepreneurship communities, building trust among young men that ultimately wins loyalty and votes. Charlie Kirk provided a strong example of this, building community and viewership from outside of the typical political lens and crafting relationships with Candace Owens and other right-leaning commentators. This makes the politics more digestible and communal, something the left has lost in many masculine communities. “By trading gender-blended hangouts in basements and restaurants for gender-segregated online spaces, young men’s politics became more distinctly pro-male,” says The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson. This community feels abandoned by the left.

This may be the most important rebrand for the Democrats. By working their way into communities and atmospheres that already exist, Democrats stand to make a far more tangible and appreciated impact. This could be financially and socially backing left-leaning influencers in gaming communities, sports fandoms, outdoorsman groups, running clubs, or any space that provides an opportunity for communication and connection. They must create left-lead spaces that are safe and honest for addressing masculinity, social issues, and American culture, even if it’s uncomfortable.

However, these connections must be genuine and built from the inside out. The left must rely on well-established community members and be open to questions, embrace opposition, and avoid judgment. Meet people where they are; that is the only way Democrats can work roots into these established communities, and hopefully gain back the favorability of moderate voters.

Figureheads & the Future

Delivering these results will be nearly impossible through traditional, establishment-driven Democratic candidates. The people crave a figurehead(s) that is powerful, pragmatic, and not afraid to get their hands dirty. If the Trump era has proven anything, it is that voters also crave a leader who at least appears not to be tied to special interest groups, i.e., a ‘genuine’ character. Trump satisfied this craving for many moderate voters, but where those votes will go in future election cycles is unknown.

How the Democrats approach their rebrand could be a make-or-break factor for the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election. Will they double down on the status quo and run an unpopular establishment candidate—or will they embrace a new identity with strong appeal to young voters, more popular policies, and a bold message? Only time will tell.

Learn more about The Thomas Paine Society by visiting our website or connecting with us on LinkedIn.

For Virginians, one such choice is approaching. Polls show the gap in the Virginia gubernatorial race tightening as election day approaches. Contrary to earlier predictions, Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger and Republican nominee Winsome Earle-Sears are setting the stage for a close contest in the only Republican-held governorship on the ballot in 2025. Abigail Spanberger, ranked among the most bipartisan members of Congress, currently leads the majority of polls, with a margin ranging from 5% to 12% over Earle-Sears.

Earle-Sears’ advertising strategy has been fairly monotonous, focusing on the tired angle of framing Spanberger as ‘woke’ and honing in on granular and vanishingly relevant gender issues. This was made agonizingly clear during Earle-Sears’ juvenile, counter-productive debate performance—one that seemed hell-bent on derailing any sort of useful exchange of ideas. Meanwhile, there is a conspicuous absence of any concrete initiatives or policy positions on her campaign website. What one can find on her website is a collection of reactionary blogs and attacks sounding the alarm over democrats’ every move. What this chest-thumping, culture-war style of opposition leaves out is the actual substance of Spanberger’s platform, i.e., the policies and stances that would be of real consequence to a majority of Virginians. These stances, which are primarily centered on affordability, government transparency, and improving public education, are readily available on Spanberger’s campaign website.

Rather than playing the partisan stone-throwing game, Spanberger appears to be running a campaign focused on moderate, proven solutions that align with a long track record of successful American values. Her government resumé includes national service as a CIA case officer and three-term U.S. representative. Her conduct as a house rep has earned her the aforementioned designation as one of the most bipartisan members of Congress, which demonstrates a conviction to bridge party divides in order to get things accomplished. We believe this is perhaps the most valuable trait an elected legislator can have in our current era of tribal partisan gridlock.

Her record is clear. Spanberger helped secure Medicare’s authority to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and worked to stop pharmaceutical middlemen from gouging consumers—an effort signed into law by President Trump. She supports reforms to break through financing and zoning barriers that have fueled Virginia’s housing affordability crisis. She resolutely seeks to advance policies that would modernize the state’s workforce, make Virginia more investment- and business-friendly, and spur growth by backing the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program. She has called for expanding rural broadband and trade opportunities to ensure Virginia’s rural economies remain competitive. She spearheaded a bipartisan initiative to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks, a measure aimed at tempering corruption and restoring public trust. She’s ahead of the curve in her efforts to back smart growth on data centers—encouraging investment while ensuring taxpayers aren’t stuck subsidizing private energy costs. The list of good ideas goes beyond the scope of this article.

To us, these positions show no evidence of ‘wokeness’ or radical partisanship. To us, these positions show dedication to unifying the commonwealth, protecting Virginians’ livelihoods, and making government more effective by working across the aisle. That is why we endorse Abigail Spanberger for governor—not because of her party affiliation, but because of her demonstrated willingness to work towards pragmatic, common-sense solutions for Virginia. We hope that Virginia’s voters will not be baited into falling for the rotten distraction tactics of her opponent.

By Coleman Spencer, Thomas Paine Society

Subscribe now