Some Thoughts about Louisville’s Mayoral Primary Race from an Independent

There’s been a lot of gnashing of teeth since the primary election results of May 19^th rolled in. How could we end up with two Democrats in November and no Republicans? To compound matters, one of those Democrats is the much disliked current mayor, Craig Greenberg, the bane of nearly every Jefferson county resident; viewed by many to be one of the worse mayors since the city/county merger of 2003.

The other, lesser known, Democrat is Shameka Parrish-Wright, the current metro council represent for District 3,  which covers some of the city’s West End and much of Shively. First elected in 2023, she serves on the Budget, Planning and Zoning, and Public Safety committees as well as on the Commission for Persons with Disabilities.

As a community organizer for 25 years, Shameka is the executive director of VOCAL-KY, a social activist organization dedicated to ending AIDS, the failed drug war, overcrowding jails and homelessness.  She was the co-chair of Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Oppression and was active with Black Lives Matter and the protest movement pertaining to Breonna Taylor.

 In addition, she has been involved with numerous other social justice groups such as The Coalition for the Homeless, Kentucky Reproductive Freedom PAC, the Anne Braden Institute for Social Justice Research, and other progressive causes. In short, all things many on the Far Right would consider “socialist” or “communist”. That leaves local Republicans and conservatives between a rock and a hard place with many looking for someone to blame.

Several have suggested Rep. Jason Nemes (R-Middletown), who proposed making the Mayoral and metro council races nonpartisan. He was a lead sponsor of HB 388 making Louisville, one of just six cities with partisan races out of the state’s 400 other cities. The idea was to bring Louisville more in line with the other cities and communities in the Commonwealth and in keeping with the growing trend nationally.

HB 388 was also based on recommendations made the bipartisan Louisville Metro Comprehensive Review Committee (which, by the way, excluded Independent and third party participation or input). Thus, no longer will the mayoral or metro council races reflect a candidate’s party affiliation. As a result, uninformed voters by and large, weren't sure who they’re voting for.

Just because no party loyalty label ("D" or "R") was shown on the ballot, the candidates were still very much partisan. In a true non-partisan election, candidates shouldn't be tied to any party, otherwise you end up with what we got---two Democrats running. Of course, it could have just as easily gone the other way with two Republicans facing off in November. 

In non-partisan elections, voters need to be educated to look at a candidate's position on issues and make their decision about who to vote for based on that. Given that most voters are generally conservative leaning (though not extreme), the moderate Right and moderate Left should do well while the extremists on both sides would likely be defeated. This would bring us back to where rationality and compromise are the order of the day.  

The second big issue was that most voters, despite their near constant kvetching about Mayor Greenberg, didn’t bother to vote. Of the 585,088 registered voters in Jefferson County, just 151,288 showed up at the polls. That works out to be a measly 25% of the vote. Where was the other ¾ of the county’s voters? As an aside, of Louisville’s 7,655 Independents and third party voters, 6,516 turned out to vote. That’s an 85% turnout.

Therefore, it looks like the fault (or blame if you prefer) rests with the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties for failing to get their people out to vote, and especially that of the local Republican party for not helping its voters to know who on the ballot was a Republican! An apparent failure in understanding non-partisan ballots.

I should also mention that it is my understanding that Republican metro council members, as well as other elected Republicans, decided to “stay home” as well. While technically the party doesn’t openly endorse during a primary, individuals, elected or not, most certainly can support a candidate of their choice. Afterall, since this was a “non-partisan” race, there would obviously be no bias or violation of bylaws since no one on the ballot was a “D” or “R” (or “I” if we were so allowed).  

I suppose if anyone is looking to fix blame on the mayoral election outcome, Republicans can look to their party leaders and to other elected Republicans for not supporting their own as well as failing to alert their partisan “congregation” just who was and wasn’t a member and working to get out the vote. From my perspective, this is a not just a failure of leadership, it’s a betrayal of Republicans and conservatives alike.

Finally, we need to look at our fellow voters. Three-fourths of those eligible to vote stay home,. Most of those were in the county while urban Louisville came out to vote in force---as it usually does. It makes me wonder just how much worse things are going to have to get in Louisville to get us off our collective butts and do something aside complain. To paraphrase President Teddy Roosevelt, “if all you want to do is complain and offer no solutions, then sit down and shut up. We need doers to change the system. Not whiners".

 

In Focus: State Rep. Jason Nemes discusses updates toKentucky Law that governs partisan and non-partisan races in Louisville

Commonwealth Secretary of State’s Election Results

Our Election Day "PSA" For Voters Everywhere!

 

Election day (May 19^th) is fast approaching, and it seems that the airwaves and social media are full of “vote for me” commercials, not to mention the usual political entertainment, “mudslinging”. Along with the commercials, there’s the usual ubiquitous endorsements which are in truth nothing more than character references for the public.

Some endorsements are quite obvious. They’re from groups, individuals, or industries looking for “buying immediate access” which is shorthand for controlling or at least manipulation legislation as it pertains to them or the industry.

Some endorsements are less sinister. They aren’t necessarily looking for tax breaks or less government oversight. They’re really looking to improve child education, better healthcare, fresh water, or reduce pollution. To achieve these goals, they need an advocate in Congress. But these groups often have little or no money to donate. What money they have, which often comes from membership dues, are used to fund their project or to keep their doors open. However, money is the life blood of politics and influence typically goes to the highest bidder.

For instance, did you know that the average incumbent in the House has to raise $2900 every day (including weekends)? A challenger for the House has to raise around $3300 a day. Meanwhile, a U.S. senator has to come up with $15,300 per day. 75% of the average elected official’s time goes to fundraising for themselves or their party.

 It’s not unusual that these groups, despite their ultraistic objectives, are ignored by elected officials while Big Business continues unabated with their ownership of not just Congress, but the legal system, presidency, and even the government bureaucracy.

 So, what about the media and their candidate endorsements? Practically all media outlets, newspapers, TV, radio, and so forth have a specific political agenda. In fact, 98+ of all media is owned by just five corporations. It’s natural then that their endorsements are in line with their owners political interests, which don’t always (or even usually) coincide with the interests of the public. 

On occasion, they may give a reluctant halfhearted endorsement of a candidate on the opposing side provided they support at some of their side’s agenda. Besides, it keeps up the illusion of impartiality. Nevertheless, should the media be making endorsements in the first place?

The role of the media should be to provide accurate and balanced news so that we can make informed decisions. That means the news media needs to be non-partisan in their reporting. At election time the media (particularly newspapers) like to make their endorsements and urge you---the voter---support their agenda, yet their agendas don't necessarily represent our best interest.

Therefore, it’s best for you to do own research, which is easily found on the internet There are a host of non-partisan and unbiased sites available online (I’ve provided some links below). Armed with this information, you need to vote your conscience. Don't vote to be "anti" anything. Forget about party. We don't need any more negativity in the world. Instead, make your vote count "for" something you truly believe in. 

P.S.: Our apologies for the odd format. That appears to be an error on Blogger, our site's platform.  

Congressspends more than half their time dialing for dollars.

An insidelook at Congressional fundraising

 

How MoneyShapes Pathways to Power in Congress

Open Secrets

Your Voter’sGuide

Ballotpedia

See What’sOn Your Ballot

 Decide Whoto Vote For

 

 

Reforming Kentucky's Broken Primary System

For Independents, open primaries has been seen as essential. Afterall, we're force to pay for partisan primaries through our taxes, and yet in Kentucky and 13 other states, we're prohibited from participating. Our Founding Fathers, who opposed the notion of political parties ("cliques" as they called them) would have referred to this as an example of taxation without representation.

Joining with Let Us Vote, a nationally Independent organization, we have a terrific opportunity to do something about being locked out of primaries in Kentucky (this also affects third parties as well). Join us on March 18th for a Zoom conference call as we explore ways to break through the door erected by the Status Quo to keep Kentuckians out and protect their usurped power.

We've been working hard over many years---decades---to reform Kentucky's election process. We have been successful in reforming the Louisville Metro Council to create a non-partisan ballot so we can focus on voting for the most qualified candidate. Not the best of the worst. Now, as we join with Let Us Vote, we will have the tools and resources to make it happen. Will you join with us? Together we can make a more fair election system for all Kentuckians!

To learn more and where to sign up, check out this link:  https://kentucky.letusvote.org

Thanks to all!

Paul Hosse for Independent Kentucky;

Editor/Publisher of the top ranked Independent Op/Ed blog, Another Opinion AnotherOpinionblog.com

Is Civil War on the Horizon?

 

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than years leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during the era of Women's Suffrage, Prohibition, or the Great Depression. Even more so than the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent presidential and national elections (such as in New York and Virginia) has served only as dark mirrors of our division. What have we've become?

One ideal is in the belief of a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government our of our private lives. The other ideal is one where government is the sole source of our social and economic salvation. The first believes in opportunities where one succeeds or fails by their  own efforts.  Neither the government or society  owes you anything.

The other believes in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal and should be given special consideration for one historical slight or another.  One believes success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to teach the skills one needs to survive in society, not to babysit. They believe everyone needs a helping hand from time to time.

The later believes in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. A society  where mediocrity is superior to a society of meritocracy; that successful people "owe" those who aren't as successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or playing sports is more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a living just for showing.

They believe they should be "forgiven" of their school debt because they received degrees which aren't marketable but fail to explain how taxpayers, who must pick up their defaulted debt, are responsible for their bad decision making. 

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They envisioned a nation free to believe what they wanted without being manipulated. They believed that the right to petition their representatives meant the right to question them and if necessary recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our personal business. There's’ no doubt this belief would extend to corporations as well.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”.  Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proved their mistrust government.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as surely as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include those who are members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering and legacy media propaganda.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while we are left dealing with the mess. 

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how the other side won't simply roll over and let them have their way. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule, not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you are never allowed to see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws to allow them to make more money while avoiding taxes. They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms to government bureaucracy and back again. They are the corporate lobbyist and Beltway insider.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources while selling us illusions of how our lives could be in ten second TV spots or 8 x 10 retouched glossy magazine photos if we only bought their product.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by no boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and citizens to mere global consumers. We’ve become indentured economic serfs and captives to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence. They are the ultimate users and corruptors.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Our constitutional republican government is beyond mere reform. Many already recognize this. A few more are finally waking up. Some, however,  may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as the they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Uncle Sam is on life support while his two hopeful murders, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment, Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice any longer. 

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

The Time for Political Change is Now: Term Limits, Transparency, and Partisan Gerrymandering

 

When our Founding Fathers embarked on this unique experiment we called the United States of America, they drew on many sources ranging from ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, the ideals of the Enlightenment, and even Judeo-Christian traditions. Their hope was to create a Constitutional Republic which provided just enough government to enable society to flourish with a bare minimum of political interference.

In doing so they opposed the creation of political parties (what they called "factionalism") which they believed would divide Americans and eventually usurp political power from the citizenry and encourage the creation of special interests groups which would, in time, come to control political agenda and the levers of power which rightfully belong to the American citizen. 

They hoped that this new form of government would encourage the development of the "citizen legislator". That is, ordinary citizens from all walks of life who would take their turn in coming to Washington, local councils, and state government, serve a term or two, and then return home. Thus, allowing most everyone an opportunity to participate in controlling their own destiny.

The Founders never intended on the creation of political factions as mentioned above. They opposed the creation of another professional political class like the one they had just thrown off; one comprised of  wealthy upper crust aristocrats. They viewed these individuals as having no connection with the ordinary colonist. They were considered haughty and elitist. They were too inclined to tax ordinary citizens while exempting themselves and their cronies. Laws which applied to the common farmer or business owner didn't apply to them.

In short, our Founders wanted to avoid what we have today---a professional political class of wealthy individuals belonging to competing political factions controlled by powerful special interests groups who've made it all but impossible for the average citizen to participate in the election process. This is thanks mainly to partisan gerrymandering of districts which all but guarantees no party turnover; unlimited financing of not just campaigns, but of legalized bribery through so-called "leadership PACs" which serve as a near bottomless source of funds for the officeholder thanks to Citizens United; the co-opting of the legislative process by very well paid lobbyists (many of whom are former politicians or staffers) who "help" write legislation and then ensure its passage through the maze of committee chairmen "gatekeepers" who get their cut at each stage of the process; and, of course, unlimited terms which means that a well funded politician can hold onto an office virtually for life, just like those old aristocrats. In fact, it's not uncommon for their children, relative, or close friend to pick up the seat after they retire with a full salary and benefits for life---all paid for by you and me.

It's the latter issue, unlimited terms, that I want to briefly discuss. Prior to 1947, the President of the United States could serve indefinitely. However, almost all had previously self-limited themselves to two four year terms out of tradition based on George Washington's example. The one exception was the 32nd President, Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka "FDR"). Roosevelt, a Democrat, was elected in 1933 amid the Great Depression. Through essentially a reworking of government regulations and a series of economic measures and public work projects, he staved off the collapse of the economy, at least for awhile.

However, by 1941, it was beginning to appear that the country might be starting to slip back into, at the very minimum, a recession, if not another depression when the Imperial Japanese Navy struck Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The next day America was at war with Japan and a few days later, with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and their combined allies. Although Roosevelt faced elections every four years, the American People believed that wartime was no time to change leaders. Unfortunately, he never saw the war conclusion. He died just a month shy of Germany's capitulation and four months shy of Japan's surrender.

Nevertheless, the American People seemed to agree, perhaps after seeing the toll that 12 years in office took on their beloved president. It was decided that two four years in Washington's tradition were enough. So, on February 27, 1947, the Twenty-second Amendment was ratified limiting the presidency to eight years. What was not changed, however, was the tenure of Congress. The Senate tenure remained six years per term while the House stayed at two years per term. However, there was no cap placed on how many terms they could serve.

In those days there was more participation in politics. People trusted their government (and the media).  Gerrymandering hadn't quite become the science it is now, and special interests hadn't yet seized total control of the political process. People voted (61.4% in 1964 vs.55.7% in 2016). It was still possible for a "Mr. Smith" to afford to run for office and go to Washington. Compromise and civility was more the norm than the visceral extremism of today.

Of course, that's all changed now. Today, the average cost to run for a U.S. Senate seat is approximately $15 million dollars. To run for a House seat, the average cost is (ready for this?)...$2 million dollars. The reelection percentage of incumbents range from 91% in the House to 84% in the Senate and has been that way (or higher) for a very long while now, and yet the approval rating of Congress (as of February 2020) is only 23% (it's been as low as 9%). To put it another way, 77% of your employers think you're doing a lousy job and yet you're rehired almost 100% of the time. I don't know about you, but I find something very unsettling about this.

As everyone knows (or should know), the U.S. has become what our Founders feared---an oligarchy. We have a professional class of plutocrats who think they know better they we know about how to run our lives. They've created a system which makes us dependent on them. They even bribe us with our own tax dollars. They've created a surveillance state within a neo-fascist corporatocracy, and are awaiting the opportunity, be it real or manufactured, to impose a police state (the so-called "digital ID" being rolled out in Europe and Canada may be the opening salvo). 

Here's another way for you to think about it. During its heyday, the central governing body of the USSR (or the "Axis of Evil" as President Ronald Reagan called it), the Soviet Politburo, had a higher turnover rate of its members (all of whom belonged to just one party---the Communist) than the members of Congress with their two parties. Of course, nowadays have a single political party too. It's the corporate party, with a Left and Right wing. It kind of makes you wonder who provided the best representation to its citizenry doesn't it? So then, what are some of the pros and cons of term limits?

First, by establishing term limits it would restrict the amount of time an individual has to spend on raising money. Right now the average politician has to raise at least $18,000 every single day for themselves plus at least that for party leadership. On average, a politician will spend six hours of their day just on raising money. That's six hours every day not working on issues. That's six hours per day of not working for us. If their terms are limited they would be more willing to take a stand on key issues rather than hedge their bets in order not to offend some powerful special interest.

It's no secret that the very nature of politics corrupts. Even a person with the best intentions will get "dirty" sooner or later. The longer you're in office the more likely the chances. By limiting terms, it would limit the corruption. Of course, if you're dirty going in or lean that way, limiting the term won't change a thing. A limited term would also reduce the time powerful corporate interests have in gaining control over you. However, given the costs of running for office, unless you're super rich, the chances are pretty good that a least a few have already got their hooks into you.

Congress (or even state or local legislatures), ironically, don't function much like a democracy. They are seniority based with committee leaders and party whips (who ensure you vote the way you're told), and so forth. By restricting tenure, it would increase turnover of these committees and thus by necessity make them more democratic. It might also cut back on a lot of the political shenanigans played out daily behind closed doors. It forces politicians to focus on three or four key issues they intend to accomplish.

By increasing the turnover in Congress you would obviously bring in fresh blood. That means Congress would react faster to changes taking place in society. It would automatically create a closer connection between representatives and those they're supposed to represent. At the same time, by removing individuals long disconnected from their districts (many don't even return home until nearing election time) it would bring in a plethora of new ideas.

Increased turnover too would force members of Congress back to the political center (where the overwhelming majority of Americans are) and to learn once again how to compromise in a true bipartisan manner. Wouldn't a Congress without all the viral hatred and bickering be a good thing for this country? Just think of how much more could get accomplished. It could also increase the need to streamline how things are done, which just might force Congress to cut back in their involvement in our lives.

Term limits do have some drawbacks to consider too. In the process, we could lose some of very few "good" politicians as well as reduce the level of experience level of those who know how to get things done. It could also impact the working relationships which exist between politicians. Given that their time is limited, it could produce a "don't care" attitude among some. However, that would soon be thinned out by voters. 

Nevertheless, despite the negatives, 84% of Americans would like to see form of term limits. So, with a majority like that, why are we still tolerating unlimited terms?  Perhaps limit the Senate to a maximum of three six year terms which would be 12 years. The House could serve the same through six two year terms and expand the presidency to three four years terms. That way, everyone served equally with no more than 12 years max.  If you are one of the "good" ones, that would be enough to get things done. Lastly, I would go one step further by limiting federal judges (including the Supreme Court) to 12 years as well. Too many times, they has proven to be out of touch with society. 

Of course, term limits by themselves won't be enough to retake the government from the ruling Oligarchy. We need to remove Citizens United and cut unlimited corporate money out of politics. We've got to prevent lobbyists from writing legislation in the name of elected officials. We need to given the president and the governors line item veto authority in order to cut out bad projects and special perks tacked onto bills. At the state and local levels, we need to have the final say on all tax, rate and salary increases for elected officials. In addition, we need citizen directed referendums and initiatives.

Speaking of which, no more salaries and benefits for life. Any and all legislation must apply to elected officials, not just us. Government must also become more transparent. Partisan gerrymandering must stop. Instead, turn over redistricting to a non-partisan agency like the Federal Defense Mapping Agency or to local universities on a rotating basis. Currently districts are drawn to benefit parties, not voters. That must change.

Lastly, and this a pet peeve of mine, I'm tired of all the partisan bickering. Next to nothing gets done for the American People. Regardless of their political party, I would like to see everyone elected to office resign from the party upon their election. They are there to represent all voters, not just their political clique. In addition to their oath of office, they need to take an oath to represent their districts, their state, and the American People irrespective of any partisanship. 

At present, over 43% of voters are registered Independent, and that number is growing while the number of registered Democrats and Republicans are continuing to shrink. It's time for both parties to accept the fact that their days of "divide and conquer" are over.  Additionally, with our "winner-take-all" political system, when one party wins, all those on the other side are left unrepresented. That needs to end. It's time that every American should be represented...just as our Founders intended. What do you think?

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 


Voting in Early America

Statistical Summary of 18 Month Campaign Activity of the 2017-2018 Election Cycle

OpenSecrets: Costs of Election

OpenSecrets: Election Trends

Gallup: Congress and the Public

OpenSecrets: Reelection Rates Over The Years

Congress Spends More Time Dialing for Dollars Than Legislative Work

Is it time America had a National “Come to Jesus” Conversation About the State of America or Face a National Divorce?

 

What’s wrong with us when a large segment of the population celebrate the murder of someone just because we disagree with them or they challenge our worldview? I wasn’t a follower of Charlie Kirk, though I did occasionally listen to him. I didn’t always agree with what he said, but I did respect his right to say it; to express his opinion in an open and civil manner, which was more than he typically got in return from those who proclaim themselves “woke” or “enlightened” (more like they’re sleepwalking and regurgitating what they’ve been told.

 And since when do we make excuses for coldblooded murder on  individuals minding their own business sitting on a bus reading a book or out walking their dog in the park? Is it simply easier to blame the victim now that they can no longer speak for themselves?

 To compound matters, there were four other sitting just feet away to refused to act while she was being murdered, and even after the killer walked away, boosting that he had just killed a “white girl”, they just left her to die alone on the floor of a bus.  I guess after they praised three separate assassination attempts on President Trump, we should have expected it.

 When Donald Trump was first elected President, his campaign mantra was to “make America great again”. Well, he’s back and it’s once again the mantra of his followers amid the vitriol of the Left. Ironically, the phrase was used in a radio commercial for Hillary Clinton during her run in the 2008 Democratic Primary, now we now hear from the Left asking, “what’s so great about America?” and “when was America ever great?”.

Under President Eisenhower’s two terms running from 1953 to 1961, 73% of Americans said they trusted their government. Going along partisan lines, the trust level of government was 79% among Republicans. Even Democrats were happy (yes—actual “happy” Democrats. They did once exist). 71% said they trusted in the government.

The overall trust level had jumped to 77% by the time Lyndon Johnson took office. But as the war raged on and the causality rates rose (as well as lies by the military and government became public), those numbers started to drop. Still, they would be regarded as high by today’s standards with 66% confidence level by Democrats and a 60% by Republicans.  By the time Johnson left office, and Richard Nixon took over, public trust had dropped but still remained strong at an overall 68%.

Following Nixon’s resignation and the advent of Gerald Ford’s “caretaker” administration, public trust was floundering at 36%. Among Republicans, just 38% had any confidence in the government. The Democrats weren’t far off with 36%. Jimmy Carter was elected as the “anti-insider” in 1976. The American People had had enough of Washington insiders and Carter took office with a new high---40%---before tumbling to 28% by the time he left office.

Despite Reagan’s perceived popularity over his eight years as president, trust in the government never did any better than 46%, a pale reflection of the Eisenhower days which Reagan often recalled in his speeches. By 1994, during the Clinton Administration, the public’s trust in the government had hit a record low of 19% before rising to 49% by the end of his second term.

President Reagan was well known for his often quips. One involved his switching parties. When asked why he left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican, he famously said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me”. I guess this was the time when the American People could say the same thing about both parties now and the government in general. Government had left the American People.

Sadly, it took a national tragedy like 9/11 to rekindle America’s faith in their government, and it came shortly after George W. Bush (aka “Dubya”) took office. Poll numbers vary slightly, but the public’s trust in government ranged between 55% and as much as 60% according to some polls. Ever then, confidence in the government has been on a downward trajectory ever since. As some have said, “we're in a handbag to Hell on roller skates and no one is driving”

The best Trump did in his first term was 27%. Under President Biden, levels of trust in the government again repeated lows of 19%. Even among Democrats, the trust factor never did better than 35%.  For Republicans, it remained at levels one could only call abyssal---11%.

Today, Americans barely tolerate each other. We tend to live in our collective bubbles and regurgitate what we see and hear without bothering to question or investigate. They demand to be heard but refuse to listen. They celebrate the murders of others and excuse their killers. We’ve become two nations.

Even when we break down trust in government by race, we don’t see much of change. Using the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson administrations as a starting point, Blacks and whites intersected in October 1964 (the early LBJ Administration) with a 77% each saying they trust the government.

Staring in 1968, that trust among Blacks has plummeted. The next time it peaked was in 1993, corresponding with Bill Clinton’s inauguration, when it hit 43%. Even under Obama, it didn’t do any better than 39% in February 2013. Biden got close in April 2021 with 37%.  Trust levels hit rock bottom in March 2019  during Trump’s administration when they dropped to 9% thanks largely to relentless negative news about Trump and his administration by the legacy media. It was so bad that 67% of Blacks had been convinced that the political system exists to hold them back. 

Among Whites, their highest trust level in government following October 1964 wasn’t until October 2001 under George W. Bush when it reached 61% few weeks following the 9/11 attacked (was this actually “trust” or just patriotism?).   For Whites, their low point came in October 2011 under Obama when it dropped to 8%.

According to Pew Polling, Hispanics weren’t tracked until December 1990 when  George “Dubya” Bush was the president. Their initial starting point was 39%. They quickly reached their highest level of trust of 57% in December 1998, which was late into Clinton’s tenure as president before again dropping off. Their next high point came in January 2013 when it reached 44% under President Obama. Interesting, their lowest level of trust in the government came at the end of the Biden’s presidency when it hit 23%.

Lastly, Asians. Apparently, they first appeared in polling data in August 2020 during Trump’s first term when they expressed a trust level of only 27%. They peaked in May 2022 at 37% under Biden, only to bottomed out a month later at 23%. Native Americans and Independents, the nation’s largest political bloc, were excluded in the polling data.

Now, President Trump promises to make us “great” once more. That would mean taking us politically, socially, and economically back to the post-World War II years of Harry Truman and Ike. The American economy was booming and we had taken center stage as empires of old, England, France, and Germany faded from the limelight. We had become a “superpower”.

As for President Trump, he has been implementing many of campaign promises (a rarity in itself). He has started deporting illegal residents by the thousands (many of whom had previously just laughed at the usual empty rhetoric about deportation). He has started purging the government of useless and redundant bureaucrats, saving taxpayers millions in the process, and having an eye towards shutting down unneeded agencies. President Trump is, as promised, “draining the swamp”.

Of course, in his zeal, he needs to be careful of not overreaching into areas vital to ordinary citizens such as Social Security, unemployment, or WIC, while ensuring that those who actually need government services receive it. Often reformist zeal can turn into blind zealotry. He has imposed tariffs, which has been largely unpopular with the public and small businesses since it means higher prices which big business seems rather pleased. He has also promised lower prices, especially for staples like milk and eggs, which has yet to happen. 

For too long, the bulk of American citizens have seen government as inept and corrupt. Over 65% of Americans are unhappy with our position in the world. 72% of America agree with the statement that "America was once a good example of democracy, but no longer".  Among the OECD nations, the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to trust in government at 31  %. Only Columbia and Chile rank lower.  The country with the highest level of trust is Switzerland with 83.78%. 

 Given the appalling insensitive reaction of many on the Left (including much of the legacy media) to the death of Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska, and others, the question  which now faces our nation is “now what?” We’ve become two nations with differing values occupying the same space. Our only commonality is the Status Quo which serves itself by keeping us divided and at each other’s throats. Can we root out the "Deep State" and restore our Republic or is it too late? Can we learn to talk “to” and not “at” one another again; to be respectful whether we agree or not with each other?

Personally, I have my doubts. America has become too deeply and widely divided and too willing to act as if this is acceptable.  It’s not. That means either deep reform, if not a complete overhaul of the government and breaking up the powerful corporate-government state, and returning to a constitutionally based Republic as intended by our Founders (which incidentally means doing away with political parties and having “citizen legislators”) or finding a way to peacefully create a two state nation, perhaps along the lines of a loosely based federation (Yugoslavia or the old Austro-Hungarian Empire comes to mind).  

We’ve watched the government slide from a Republic responsible to its citizens under Eisenhower to a surveillance state within a neo-fascist corporatocracy which serves Wall Street. Government, both elected and appointed, no longer represent the American People. Instead, it serves corporate interests and those with deep pockets.  Much of what Congress, the Judicial system, past presidents, and the legacy media bears that out. We can’t even be sure our vote still counts.

The only alternative is to terrible to seriously contemplate. Those who seek balance---“centrists” or “moderates”---have been largely purged from both of the corporate owned parties. As a result, they now make up the nation's majority of voters. They’re called Independents and unlike the two corporate parties, everyone is welcome if you believe in tolerance and having an open mind (we’re funny that way).  

But regardless of your political leanings, there’s one thing which is crystal clear and that is that our present dystopian state of the nation cannot hold.  Something has to give. It’s time that we, as a nation, have a frank and honest national conversation, a so-called “come to Jesus” moment to address some ugly truths about ourselves and find a way to peacefully coexist or simply agree to disagree and go our separate ways. 

Empires come and go. Republics tend to last about 250 years before they implode. We’ve reached that 250 year mark. We are, as our Founding Fathers said, a “grand experiment”. Nothing about our future was pre-ordained. I suspect we’ve already exceeded their expectations. One thing is for sure though. If we are to “make America great again”, we cannot continue to limp along as we have been doing and still pretend we’re a “Republic”. We’re not. Extremism and intolerance has no place among a free people. So, what do you want to do America?

 Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Pew Research: Public Trust in Government: 1958 - 2024

 

72% of American say the US used to be a good example ofdemocracy but isn’t anymore

 

WEF: Trust in Government by Country 2024

 

Make America Great Again

 

The American Experiment

 

Gallup: A Third of Americans Satisfied With Global Position

 

Black Americans mistrust the US political system

 

 The State of Public Trust in Government 2025

Americans Deepening Mistrust of Institutions

Where Has the Love Gone? The Future of the American Political Duopoly

 America’s love affair with partisan politics (if there really was one) appears to be over for good. The Democrats, once the harbinger of inclusivity, has found itself mired in mediocrity and lacking in leadership, is able to maintain relevance through Identity politics.  I guess that’s what happens when you run out of ideas and don’t have a very deep bench.

The Republican Party, as a result has benefited, especially in America’s heartland and  in particular, at state and local levels. Yet, its support seems to rest on the last vestiges of a fading demographic white, mostly male, middle class voters, and there is a subtle cold and callous undertone to their call for austerity and “making America great again” by cutting back on social security and the public social safety net but continuing to spend more money on the military than the next ten nations (including China, UK, India, France, and Russia) combined!   

However, neither those who agitate on the Left or Right are satisfied with what their side is offering. The result is an America more deeply and widely divided than at any time since the years proceeding the Civil War.  Some ominously predict a pending revolution while others anticipate a second civil war at any moment, and still others foresee for a “civil divorce”.

Even during our formative years as a nation there were those among our Founding Fathers who questioned whether we were or could ever become a truly “United States” of America. We were fundamentally too different; a multitude of nations.  Over the subsequent decades and centuries, as millions came to our shores, those divisions have only intensified. Regardless, one thing is for sure. This is not the America our Founders intended. So, lets take a look at our political landscape. Perhaps we can even predict an America just a few years or a decade or two down the road.

First, despite the popular belief that America is a “two party” nation, the truth is that it was never established that way. In fact, the majority of the Founders opposed the creation of political parties, fearing that they could become powerful special interest cliques which would in time weaken the political power of the average citizen through deception and corruption and eventually dominate government (nah. That could never happen…could it?).

Secondly, that we’re only limited to just two parties. In fact, we’ve have numerous political parties. Most have either merged with other parties or simply faded away with whatever particular issues they supported. Today, we have two primary parties---Democrat and Republican, although the Libertarian, Green, and Constitutional parties are formable.

 However, despite their public perception of two differing parties, the fact is they’re more similar than not.  For example, they’re both owned by special interests from Wall Street. Wall Street controls the finances of both parties. It funds their campaigns, their leadership PACs, and sets their agenda. It dictates their domestic and foreign policies (which are not overly dissimilar). The corporate media defines their public persona and influences their political message. Both are legal fictions given the rights of the average citizen…and then some.  They are, in fact, a duopoly of Wall Street. Another thing they have in common is that both are actually minority parties.

According to the most recent polling, Independents are the largest political demographic in the United States with just over 43% of all registered voters not aligning with either the Democrats or Republicans. As an aside, did you know that Independents have been the dominate political demographic since 2011? Meanwhile, the two corporate owned parties are roughly equal with 28% each of the electorate making Independents (erroneously called “swing voters” by some) the literal “kingmakers” of today’s politics.

Something else the Democrats and Republicans have in common is that not many people like them. According to a Pew poll, 65% of registered voters, irrespective of registration, disliked Republican polices. 56% felt the same way about Democrat policies.

A 2025 NBC News Stay Tuned Poll, showed that 71% of Independents disapproved of the direction the Republican Party was going. 91% of Democrats agreed as did 13% of Republicans (could they be the nefarious “RINOs” so hated by GOP hardliners?).

When it came to Democrats, 64% of Independents disapproved of where the Democratic Party was wanting to take the country. 93% of Republicans concurred. Interestingly, so did 22% of Democrats (those nefarious “DINOs” this time).  In short, an overwhelming majority of Americans disapproved of both Democrat and Republican policies.

Amusingly, in 1960, 4% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their son or daughter married someone outside of their party affiliation. In 2019, nearly half---45%---of Democrats said they’d be unhappy if their child married someone from a different party. Republicans were apparently a little more open minded. Just 35% said they would object. Today, I suspect they’d be disowned.

Another factor affecting both parties is that they’re losing their base. Demographics in America are constantly changing. Historically, America has been a predominate white European nation since its founding while blacks were considered the largest minority, As a result, legislation and funding was directed accordingly. But that’s all changing.

Today, whites are still the largest racial demographic at 58.4% (white males, often viewed as America's political, social, and economic “powerbrokers” are projected by the Census Bureau to become a de facto minority by the early 2040's).  The second largest population are Hispanics, who comprise 19.5% of the population (that number would likely be higher if all illegal immigrates were included. However, it's  only as an estimate). Black Americans make up just 13.7% of the population. Asians are 6.4%. Those claiming two or more races make up about 3.1% of the population (and growing). Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and others make up under 2%.

Based on projections, sometime in the next 25 years, America will no longer have a majority racial population. Whites and Hispanics are expected to have a near parity. Black percentages are expected to drop while Asians are anticipated to increase along with the number of those of mixed racial ancestry. So, what does that mean?

Well, for starters, it means that limited federal tax dollars are going to be redirected to the group with the most mouths to feed, and that’s going to be Hispanics. So, expect future federal (and likely state) programs will cater more to Hispanics which could increase competition between blacks and Hispanics for federal dollars.

Secondly, there will be an increase in the number of people of Hispanic ancestry being elected to office at all levels as a result of both a growing population and an increased concentration in key districts or dominate state with high electoral votes. So, don’t be surprised to see a Hispanic president in the next 25 years. Also, although historically, there’s been a decrease in ancestral allegiance over generations, that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to Hispanics.

 The reason is that historically, immigration came in waves, thus giving time to integrate into American society, aka the proverbial “melting pot”. Note too, this “absorption” was also encouraged by previous immigrants and society in general as well as newly arriving immigrants had a strong desire to become “Americans” as quickly as possible.

That’s no longer the case. First, the arrival of Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) are occurring as such regular rate and volume that there’s little time or opportunity to integrate. Secondly, many have no intention or desire in becoming “Americans”. They are here solely for a payday.  These are economic migrations. As a result, few bother to learn English, the laws, or adopt to customs, values, or traditions. They tend to congregate in their own ethnic enclaves. Many regularly support family back home. Therefore, nearly everything about them remain tied to their native country.

Black Americans have faced a series of serious issues since emancipation which the federal government has attempted to correct through legislation and various taxpayer based programs with varying degrees of success. As federal funding for programs and services are reduced or redirected, along with competition for jobs now being taken by Hispanics, black Americans are going to be forced to struggle harder.

Lastly, the percentage of Asians are growing more rapidly than previously. This is due to the influx of Asians from places like China, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan,  Vietnam, and elsewhere. Another factor is that Asians tend to have large families (as do Hispanics). Thus, in certain areas, especially along the West Coast, Asians could come to represent minority majorities.

This brings us to an interesting question. With Democrats and Republicans shrinking in number, generational dissatisfaction with existing partisan politics (especially among Millennials, Gen Z and facing a declining number of Babyboomers and aging Gen X), what does our political, economic, and social future look like?  Cities, starving for economic  resources, are gobbling up smaller surrounding communities. Corporations are also continuing to gobble up everything they can, thus eliminating or consolidating competition. It already controls the government, and with it, controls funding as well as domestic and foreign policy.

 Technology, especially AI, is already proving to be a double edge sword. It’s provided opportunities for a few while reducing or eliminating jobs thus contributing to the already enormous gulf between the rich and the rest of us. It is also the tool behind our evaporating personal privacy and becoming the ever watchful eye of our emerging surveillance state. It bears mentioning that Millennials and Gen Z, both raised on technology, don’t appear to have the same regard toward privacy as older generations.

As I briefly touched on, the wage/income gap between the elites and the rest of society (which also benefits Congress and others in power) is widening. For instance, did you know that the top 1% control 31% of the nation’s wealth compared to the bottom 50% which controls just 2.6%? From 1979 to 2023, the top 1% saw their wealth grow 182% while the bottom 90% had a growth of 44%. The average CEO makes roughly 334 times that of the average employee.  

Are either of the two corporate owned parties equipped to deal with issues like these over the long term? The Democrats try to maintain power by never saying “no” and kicking the debt can down a short dead end road without a worry about who’s going to pick up the tab. The Republicans hope they can prolong the inevitable by cutting programs affecting the politically weakest and forcing open foreign markets by rook, crook, or rocket. They believe cutting taxes on mega corporations and the wealthy will improve the lot for everyone else.

Neither party are willing or able to make the changes which we need. Besides, it’s not in their vested interests to do so. It’s taken decades crafting the perfect scam. The tune they dance to isn’t the voice of the American voter. It’s sound of vast sums of money played by Wall Street. Corporatism, as under Fascism or Communism, requires a compliant citizenry convinced into surrendering their integrity and wellbeing to a state absent any real accountability, which to me is a lot like an alley cat telling a mouse to “trust me”.  Bon Appetit anybody?

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Political Polarization in the United States

Digging into America’s sour views on both political parties:From the Politics Desk

GOP Holds the Edge in Party Affiliation for Third StraightYear

Wage inequality fell in 2023 amid a strong labor market,bucking long term trends

Corporatism

U.S. Census Bureau: Quick Facts

Partisan Politics drags U.S. towards failed-state status