Muslims organize openly. Why do Christians act like they can’t?



Muslim communities are organizing politically in America, and they are not apologizing for it. Mosques in North Texas have become voter-registration hubs. In Michigan, Muslim candidates and activists have demonstrated the power of an organized constituency. The state has just elected the nation’s first Muslim U.S. senator.

What American Christians should learn from these examples is not theology. It is confidence in bringing religious commitments into public life. American Christians should pay attention. They have spent decades hearing that faith belongs in church and that explicitly Christian political action is somehow improper. That convenient rule does not seem to apply to everyone.

Christendom shaped the West, including America’s laws, customs, and understanding of human dignity. If Christians believe that inheritance is worth defending, they must speak up.

Christians must learn to fight for their faith in public. The future belongs to communities that intend to preserve their way of life, not those that apologize for having one.

America was founded by a population overwhelmingly shaped by Anglo-Protestant Christianity. That tradition formed its customs, moral assumptions, and public institutions. Several founding-era states required officeholders to profess Protestant or Christian beliefs. Georgia and New Hampshire explicitly favored Protestants. Other states adopted broader religious tests.

The U.S. Constitution was different. Article VI prohibited religious tests for federal office from the beginning. The First Amendment barred Congress from establishing a religion and protected its free exercise. Those protections did not change the basic reality: American life remained saturated with Protestant Christianity.

Yet the central cultural fact remains: Protestant Christianity shaped the country’s public life so thoroughly that its adherents rarely needed to think of themselves as a political majority. A fish does not know it is wet. When a nation's schools, holidays, and moral vocabulary largely reflect one religious inheritance, political organization around that inheritance can seem unnecessary.

Immigration changed the balance. Catholics had been present since colonial times, as had Jews, but immigration from Ireland, Italy, Germany, and Eastern Europe expanded the numbers and influence of religious minorities. The question was unavoidable: Could a culture built around Protestant assumptions absorb growing religious diversity without surrendering its own character?

In 1958, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy published “A Nation of Immigrants” with the Anti-Defamation League. Its vision placed immigration at the center of the American story rather than treating Anglo-Protestant culture as the country’s defining feature. Kennedy’s election as the first Catholic president in 1960 marked another transformation in the nation’s religious imagination.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, signed by Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy’s assassination, abolished the old national-origins quota system, radically changing who would be allowed to enter the country. Suddenly the floodgates to America were open.

Something else changed alongside the laws: the meaning Americans attached to religious liberty. Freedom of conscience, once defended in a society largely governed by Protestant assumptions, increasingly meant public institutions treating rival faiths on equal terms.

Courts extended constitutional limits on religious establishment to the states. The prohibition against establishing an official state church was now interpreted as a prohibition against favoring Christianity at all.

RELATED: Brazil’s election is a chilling warning for America

Blaze News Illustration

Liberal mainline Protestant leaders embraced this transformation. Their participation in the civil rights movement brought a conviction that public Christianity, if too closely identified with the old social order, could become an obstacle to inclusion. Others accepted the proposition that politics should be conducted in a supposedly neutral language, with Christian commitments translated into secular terms before they could be heard.

The pitch to the churches was simple — and seductive. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Christ rejected an earthly kingdom. Shouldn't Christians be content to preach the gospel and leave the business of government to professionals? Fear of being labeled backward or intolerant made retreat even easier.

But Christ did not tell His followers to pretend their convictions had no bearing on law, education, or the common good. The idea that Christians must be politically passive because the Constitution protects religious liberty turns that liberty into a gag order.

Conservatives helped sell this bargain. Reduce the power of government, they said, and stop trying to shape the culture through politics. Conveniently, their opponents had no intention of surrendering political power. The result was a right that treated withdrawal as principle while every competing movement treated political organization as common sense. In schools, public ceremonies, and debates over the family, that retreat handed the initiative to others.

For decades, the Christian political class has mistaken the rules of a plural society for an instruction to disappear. No secular activist interprets pluralism that way. No Muslim organizer needs to. They enter the political arena as people with convictions, constituencies, and interests. Christians should quit treating those facts of political life as a privilege reserved for everyone else.

The Moral Majority showed that Christians could act collectively. So have the religious conservative organizations that followed it. Yet too often their leaders have been content to defend yesterday's defeats rather than articulate a Christian vision of public life. They speak of “Western values” and “Western civilization” as though Christianity was an embarrassing family secret.

RELATED: The American dream now comes with upgrade fees

Blaze News Illustration

Meanwhile, a spiritual vacuum does not stay empty. Secular humanism promised to supply moral purpose without religion. Wokeness took on the character of a rival creed, complete with its own saints, heresies, and rituals of public repentance. And now Muslim communities, confident in their religious identity, are also competing for influence in the public square.

Christians should stop acting surprised. Political power will not remain unclaimed simply because they refuse to reach for it. Nor will churches recover their cultural authority by pretending that doctrine has no public consequences.

Christendom shaped the West, including America’s laws, customs, and understanding of human dignity. If Christians believe that inheritance is worth defending, they must speak up. They must organize, argue, vote, and fight politically for the institutions and moral commitments they want their children to inherit.

The lie is that doing so violates the country’s principles. The truth is that religious liberty gives Christians the same right to organize that everyone else already exercises. A faith that refuses to defend its place in public life should not be astonished when others occupy the ground it abandoned.

Trump conquered the Republican Party. What a waste of a victory.



In September, Donald Trump asked Republicans gathered in Dallas to pretend he was on the ballot in November. “Because in a way, I am on the ballot,” he told them.

I was at the American Airlines Center for the Republican midterm convention. It was a handsome production. Speaker after speaker praised Trump, invoked “common sense” over “crazy,” and celebrated his conquest of a party whose leaders once regarded him as an intruder. The crowd loved it. The old establishment had learned its lines.

Trump won over Republican voters. He never quite won over the lukewarm Republicans they sent to Washington.

On Tuesday, voters took Trump at his word. Oh, boy, did they ever.

Democrats seized commanding majorities in the House and Senate, winning seats in Republican strongholds including Texas, Kansas, and South Carolina. Trump had promised a political realignment on the scale of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal or Ronald Reagan’s revolution. What he achieved looks increasingly like a temporary rearrangement of loyalties.

It didn’t have to be this way.

In 2016, Trump spoke for Americans tired of a Republican establishment devoted to free trade, foreign adventures, and its donors. In 2024, he promised to protect workers, revive manufacturing, secure the border, and put American interests first. He won the White House twice with an argument that the old GOP had failed to understand — and still does.

He won over Republican voters. He never quite won over the lukewarm Republicans they sent to Washington.

Trump returned to office with majorities in both houses. On paper, he commanded a governing party. In practice, House and Senate leaders accommodated him when his agenda suited theirs and balked when it didn’t. As often as not, they seemed more interested in managing Trump than in carrying out the political transformation their own voters had endorsed.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a genuine achievement. It extended tax provisions and committed billions to border enforcement and ICE. Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn voted for it. But tax cuts have been Republican doctrine for generations, and border enforcement was hardly alien to the party. Their votes proved a willingness to cooperate, not a conversion to Trump’s governing philosophy.

Trade was the harder test. Trump’s tariffs collided with the party’s old free-trade commitments. McConnell joined Democrats in opposing emergency tariffs on Canada. House Republicans broke ranks, too. Under the red caps, old convictions survived.

The SAVE America Act offered a different kind of failure. The House passed it; the Senate would not muster the 60 votes to advance it. Democrats supplied the decisive opposition, but Republican leaders still could not get a major priority across the finish line. Not that they tried very hard.

A congressional majority is an opportunity, not a magic wand. Turning one into legislation takes more than issuing demands.

The same problem dogged Trump’s reliance on executive orders. A few policies found their way into legislation; others remain vulnerable to the next president’s pen. If the promised transformation could be reversed with a signature, how much had Republicans really built?

RELATED: Republicans need to be honest about why we lost

Adam Gray/Getty Images

Congressional leaders failed their own voters. But Trump hardly made their job easier. He could dominate headlines, threaten political careers, and extract declarations of loyalty. He mistook intimidation for leadership and obedience for conviction. He knew how to make Republicans fall in line. Getting them to march toward a common destination was another proposition altogether.

He also squandered political capital on spectacles his allies were left to defend. The Kennedy Center needed repairs; Trump decided it needed his name. Then came the proposed triumphal arch near Arlington. Then Lake America. Republicans defended monuments to presidential vanity while voters worried about groceries and gasoline.

And what about the Iran war?

The case against the Iranian regime is not difficult: its nuclear ambitions, support for international jihad, and more than 40 years’ worth of threats to U.S. forces and allies. Trump had arguments that deserved a serious hearing. If only he had made them. He offered a perfunctory explanation of the campaign’s objectives in April. But announcing a war and celebrating its progress are no substitute for persuading Americans that its costs are necessary and its ends attainable.

The political consequences were plain. An NBC exit poll found that 63% of voters considered military action against Iran the wrong decision, while 74% said the war was a major or crucial factor in their congressional vote. CBS found opposition among about a quarter of Republican voters. Pew Research Center identified rising fuel prices as a leading concern about the conflict. Those figures do not explain every lost seat. They do expose the limits of commanding loyalty without earning consent.

RELATED: Trump’s 2024 coalition was a loan. The bill just came due.

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Trump once boasted he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue without losing voters. Perhaps personal devotion could survive that imaginary crime. An expensive war in the Middle East was another test entirely. A president who promised to end futile foreign adventures owed Americans more than bluster and assurances that all was going splendidly.

And the economic promise? Trump said life would get cheaper. Americans went to the polls worried about food, fuel, and the future. Having insisted that he was on the ballot, he cannot credibly disown the result after the election went sideways.

Trump changed the Republican electorate and shook some exhausted orthodoxies. Those changes may endure. But a realignment must also change what politicians do when their leader is absent, or when following him becomes inconvenient. It must be enacted, defended, and handed on.

In Dallas, Republicans knew how to celebrate Trump. Their leaders never demonstrated that they knew how to make his revolution stick. Trump, for his part, never demonstrated that he could lead them there.

He conquered the Republican Party. Neither he nor its leaders quite knew what to do with the conquest. What a waste.

Why Christians lose elections



The midterm left me with a question: Why do Christians lose elections? Is it because there aren't enough Christians left? Because the other side has more money? Because Christians aren't politically organized? Was this merely an anti-Trump rage vote on Iran, ICE, tarrifs, or gas prices?

These explanations may account for some electoral defeats. But I want to suggest three deeper problems. And all three are theological.

Not every moral obligation belongs to government to enforce.

Do Christians understand what government is for?

Ask the average Christian what government is supposed to do, and you're likely to hear answers drawn from contemporary political ideologies. Government should ensure equality, provide economic security, protect individual liberty, or maximize happiness.

These answers have their origins in competing philosophical traditions. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx offered different accounts of government and its purpose. Christians frequently adopt these theories without recognizing their underlying assumptions.

But why start with human philosophers when God has already told us what government is for?

Romans 13 tells us that civil rulers are God's servants. They are appointed to punish evil and commend good. Government does not create good and evil. It is accountable to a moral standard that precedes it.

This immediately raises the questions Christians should be asking: What is good, and what is evil? And how does God's moral law apply to civil government? Instead, many Christians approach elections as consumers. Which candidate will give me the most benefits? Who will make my life easier? Who promises more money, services, and security? How can I improve my cost of living?

Christians misuse the Bible

When Christians do turn to the Bible, they will sometimes twist its meaning. It is remarkable to hear the left say that the nation is not Christian and then pick and choose a Bible verse to apply to the leftist ideology.

Consider Proverbs 31:8-9, which commands us to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and defend the rights of the poor and needy. This is a clear biblical obligation. Christians must care about the poor, the vulnerable, and those suffering injustice. But what follows from this obligation?

Some Christians reason that because the Bible commands us to care for the poor, we must support socialism or even Marxism. They think these commands are for the nation-state rather than for the church and the individual Christian.

But this reasoning makes a fundamental mistake. The Bible commands us to help the poor, but it also commands those poor to obey the law of God. Under the law of Moses, a person who moved to Israel and set up shop for his idol would not be treated as an oppressed victim who must be given government assistance.

We must distinguish between the obligations of individuals, families, churches, and civil government. Not every moral obligation belongs to government to enforce.

Helping the poor is a Christian duty. The government helps the poor by following Romans 13. Whether a specific government policy also redistributes wealth, and whether that is what the Bible requires, is another question.

RELATED: Republicans need to be honest about why we lost

Adam Gray/Getty Images

Christians have lost their biblical vision for the nations

Proverbs 29:18 famously says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." This is the vision of the Great Commission. It is stated in Isaiah this way, “for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9) and in Matthew 28:19-20 this way “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Many Christians today operate with one of two inadequate visions.

The first is materialistic. The purpose of politics is to secure physical comfort. Government should provide more benefits, more services, and more economic security. Political success is measured by how much people receive.

The second is escapist. Christianity becomes little more than getting people saved so they can die and go to heaven. What happens to our laws, institutions, and national life is treated as secondary or irrelevant.

Neither vision captures the full scope of Christ's command.

In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus declares that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him. On that basis, he commands his disciples to make disciples of all nations. Notice that Christ does not merely tell us to prepare individuals to leave this world. He commands us to disciple the nations and teach them to obey what God has commanded.

That does not mean government can force people to convert or that winning elections fulfills the Great Commission. But Christ's authority is not confined to the interior lives of believers. Every institution (government, family, education, business) is transformed by the gospel.

The nations, including their rulers, are accountable to Him. Psalm 2 explicitly calls kings and rulers to serve the Lord. When Christians lose this vision, they may elect leaders whose principles undermine justice, attack religious liberty, or obstruct the church's mission, and even work against the gospel, without recognizing the consequences.

Christians need to recover a biblical understanding of government, a faithful interpretation of Scripture, and a Great Commission vision for the nations. Until we do, even winning elections will not solve our deeper problem. We won't know what to do with the victory.

The day after tomorrow: A new GOP



Republicans are depressed, panicked, and angry. It is hard to imagine much else after the Watergate-level beating they took Tuesday night. None were spared. Moderates, grassroots, MAHA, and neocons were caught alike in the blue squall, and unsurprisingly, predictions of doom abound.

Put aside the tired "pendulum swings" cope, however, and take a look at the landscape and what's to come. There are plenty of reasons to take it all in stride. The future of the Grand Old Party, for starters, is alive and well (and may even have grown stronger in the winnowing). And just as importantly, that talented bench will have its day — because the Democrats have made clear they are determined to misinterpret their mandate.

It's a dangerous time, but in crisis lies opportunity.

When Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson lost his left arm, his friend Gen. Robert E. Lee lost his boldest and most brilliant officer, reflecting at the time that Jackson was “better off than I am, for while you have only lost your left, I have lost my right arm.”

Who was the GOP's right arm Tuesday night? Who was the key to the Republican future, lost too soon? There's a strong case to be made for Iowa's Zach Lahn, the mold-breaking MAHA populist who overcame the White House's wishes to win his primary, but his story isn't finished yet. So who else? Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall? Maine's Susan Collins? Certainly not South Carolina's Darline Graham. The Republican slate was anemic and uninspiring, and because of this reality, few rising stars can be found among the wreckage.

While the Lone Star State suffered the most impactful losses of the night and must be a critical priority for Republicans hoping to rebuild nationally, it is difficult to weep over the dead. Despite long claiming the crown of conservative state politics, the reality is that Texas is home to a corporatist establishment that seamlessly switched from importing illegal labor from Mexico to importing semi-legal labor from India when the national mood shifted — and got caught doing so.

While rightfully angry and unsatisfied, Texas' grassroots expressed that anger by promoting creepy clowns like Allen West and creepy undertakers like Ken Paxton. Neither side possesses a talent or vision for the future. They'll have two to four years to think on that and build something better.

Observers can rightfully notice that the GOP lost both of the national legislative chambers, but there is room for honest assessment there as well. Congress has spent decades bafflingly abnegating authority and is now the least powerful it has ever been. Furthermore, President Donald Trump made clear that he was largely done legislating anyway (to his detriment). Democrats' reach is limited at best, despite their campaign promises.

RELATED: Republicans need to be honest about why we lost

Adam Gray/Getty Images

To their credit, Democrats ran largely disciplined campaigns. While Senators-elect Abdul El-Sayed and James Talarico carried heavy Resistance baggage, voters barely ever heard them talk about that Resistance on the trail. For the first time in a decade, Democrats didn't run on identity politics, Russia, Ukraine, or the Resistance. They utterly ditched the problems of the Ivy League faculty lounge for the problems of everyday Americans, including even those of straight, white, Christian men.

Their focus was entirely domestic and hit on the economy, the war, and the prices of gas and diesel.

They won on that message, but before the sun rose Wednesday, there were dozens of threats to investigate and imprison Republicans from California to Washington. The campaign was a ruse, but it worked. Right now, it is hard to imagine a world where national Democrats will stay on the targets voters sent them to Washington for. Rather, they'll go for revenge.

The temptation to investigate and prosecute is strong. The insider trading among top White House lieutenants and Cabinet officials is the envy of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Hunter Biden's art sales look cute next to the Trump family's international business dealings. There was a time when these sorts of investigations might have a major political impact, but those days are gone.

The hard reality is that those unscrupulous sitting White House officers enriching themselves likely didn't break any laws, reducing Democrats' message to "shady-shady-profit-profit." For years, Republicans have tried to make the same narrative stick to the likes of Pelosi and George Soros, while smarter Democrats than incoming Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) targeted the Kochs. All these attacks ever accomplished were a sea of partisan media segments and bumper sticker sales to party activists. It's complicated stuff, and Americans are more focused on affording groceries and utilities.

Of course, Democrats can try to nail it all on the presidents' kids instead, but after years of trying that game with Russia and then Ukraine, it's hard to imagine it working with the Saudis or whoever else. Sure, Rachel Maddow's fan club will be incensed, but if history is any guide, the public will neither follow nor much care.

They will care if inflation isn't handled. They will care a great deal if energy and food prices don't come down They will be angry when they get the cable news outrage segments Congress long ago substituted for substantive legislative action.

And they will be angry at Democrats.

RELATED: Let them eat capital gains: Trump’s ‘Marie Antoinette’ presidency

ETIENNE LAURENT/AFP/Getty Images

On the campaign trail in 2016, the two most incredible spectacles were the Donald J. Trump and the Bernie Sanders shows. The energy and the outrage were electric.

No American leader has yet to approach satisfying that discontent; the frustrations were real and have only grown. Washington is still a swamp, America is still too entangled in foreign wars, and while the border is closed, the pace of legal and illegal demographic change has still deeply unsettled the people and the economy. It's a dangerous time, but in crisis lies opportunity.

At the Korean War's Battle of Chosin Reservoir, storied Marine Gen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller reportedly exclaimed, "They've got us surrounded! Good! Now we can fire in any direction.” Republicans actually do have that chance in just two years. Waves recede, and there are dozens and dozens of R+ districts that will be up for grabs for a new crop of populist candidates eager to learn the lessons of the elders' failures and champion the kind of politics Americans are demanding.

The bench is strong, the board is cleared for the next generation, Democrat overreach in all the wrong directions is inevitable, and the next elections will come. This isn't about "pendulum swings"; it's about hard work. Best get to it.

Republicans need to be honest about why we lost



One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over going into this midterm election was "composition" — whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.

So I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."

Everyone knows why we lost, and any honest conversation about where we go from here needs to start there.

Well, that opinion looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was nine points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.

There will be a lot of arguing and finger-pointing over why that happened. A pollster I highly respect told me that our economic messaging down the stretch was not sharp enough to motivate voters. I’m sure that is true.

But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.

Another pollster — one of the smartest people I know in politics — told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this prediction. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses, were:

  1. End the Iran war.
  2. Focus on the cost of living and inflation.
  3. Put America and Americans first.
  4. Change our relationship to Israel.

These four priorities are why many of our voters showed up to vote for Democrats yesterday, according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many people spent the day before the elections attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the Iran war, it turns out her political advice was perfectly sound. (She’s also a great person.)

RELATED: Trump’s 2024 coalition was a loan. The bill just came due.

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Over the next few months, there is going to be a lot of gaslighting. You can expect to hear any number of establishment politicians claim the solution to our woes is amnesty for illegal immigrants. I’m open to the idea that we should change our approach to immigration enforcement — by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. For the record, anyone pushing amnesty as a solution to our electoral issues is lying to you.

The reason we lost the midterms is the Iran war. The president himself said so last night.

If you want to argue that it was worth it — that losing the Senate for the next six years was worth it — then go right ahead. At least arguing that it was a worthwhile price to pay is honest. But everyone knows why we lost, and any honest conversation about where we go from here needs to start there.

I remain hopeful for our country. My message to the people who are angry and want to say “I told you so” is simple: You’re right. You did tell us so. Now take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview and priorities. To the people who are just angry at the results: You should be.

Let’s take this anger and use it to get back to the work of saving our country.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was originally posted on X.

Let them eat capital gains: Trump’s ‘Marie Antoinette’ presidency



The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Donald Trump most certainly isn’t one. After Tuesday’s electoral massacre, the right faces a choice: Ride or die with this man through 2028, or declare independence and rebuild a movement capable of winning power and actually using it.

On Tuesday, we held an election between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks won. When do conservatives get on the ballot under our own banner? When do we get an at-bat? We won’t if we keep running on the same hamster wheel and calling it progress.

Tuesday proved how much the status quo can cost. We have nothing left to gain by pretending it’s working.

Name the conservative issue that lost Tuesday night. Voters in states that overwhelmingly backed Trump in 2024 didn’t suddenly embrace woke radicalism. They rejected Trump and a corporatist, corrupt, listless, and hypocritical Republican Party. Democrats even borrowed issues that conservatives like me have been pushing for two years.

Look at the wreckage: Democratic Senate victories in Texas, Kansas, South Carolina, and Ohio; the loss of the Texas governorship; and a sweep through places Republicans had come to regard as safe territory. Democrats took control of the Senate and picked up at least 31 House seats. The full down-ballot damage will take time to assess, but the partisan realignment we were promised has been torn apart.

Everyone will manufacture an excuse based on his favorite issue. Some will blame the economy, others the Iran war, tariffs, bad candidates, or the usual midterm curse. Most of the conservative influencer class will perform amazing contortions to avoid uttering the name Donald Trump.

But it was all of the above, bound together by a Marie Antoinette presidency. Voters worried about paying their bills got a president boasting about a “golden economy,” stock portfolios, and a ballroom. Let them eat capital gains!

It was the tariffs. It was the war with Iran, launched with enormous fanfare and left without a convincing account of what victory means. It was the aimless legislative agenda, the Greenland fantasies, the narcissism, the Big Tech courtship, and the enthusiasm for data centers and the surveillance state. It was the endless spectacle of family business interests and questions about conflicts of interest.

This was the antithesis of Trump’s 2016 message. That message was directed at people who believed their country had been sold to the highest bidder. Now the White House seems astonished that those same people don’t celebrate every new accommodation with powerful interests.

RELATED: Democrats seize control of the US Senate

Tom Brenner/Getty Images

Of course, some good has been done. Border enforcement and other executive actions deserve credit. Nor can every Republican defeat be laid at Trump’s feet. But too many accomplishments remain vulnerable because the administration has failed to build lasting legislative victories. Worse, nothing resembling a fresh conservative movement can take shape while one man monopolizes its message, candidates, strategy, and imagination.

The party has become a personality cult with a fundraising operation attached. Trump endorses one dreary candidate after another, and the rest of the right is instructed to applaud. If you question the candidate, you are accused of betraying the cause. Which cause, exactly?

Tuesday also offered an answer to the claim that conservative principles themselves have become unelectable. Florida voters approved a DeSantis-backed property-tax amendment with about 62% of the vote, even as Republicans elsewhere suffered crushing defeats. Voters were also asked to decide 41 local data-center measures in 10 states, 28 of which would restrict development. These fights reflect genuine public hostility to political favoritism and unchecked corporate power.

Florida, for all its narrow margins, at least held its Republican governorship. The state has a governor with an identifiable record, a clear set of priorities, and an agenda he spent years putting into practice. Ron DeSantis didn’t build that record by changing the subject every time a shiny object appeared. Florida supplied the one-state wave in 2022. This year, it offered a one-state save.

RELATED: If Republicans can’t get Wyoming right, what are they fighting for?

id-work/iStock/Getty Images

Instead of learning from that contrast, the GOP base and the Conservatism Inc. influencer class will be tempted to spend the next two years defending everything Trump says, excusing every failure, and hunting for a new reason to attack anyone who asks for results.

Here is the question every so-called conservative must answer: How do we rebuild for 2028 while Trump remains the godlike leader of the right for another 26 months? How do we recruit candidates with convictions of their own when he insists on anointing his favorites? How do we talk about a serious governing agenda when every day brings a new diversion?

We cannot spend the next two years defending corruption allegations, praising a “golden economy” voters do not recognize, and explaining away policies that benefit special interests. The president will remain the most visible Republican in America, and no amount of spin will change that. Believe me, he will remind the public of that fact every day The rest of the party must decide whether it has a voice independent of his.

For how much longer will we be a conservative soul trapped in the contaminated body of the gay old party? Tuesday proved how much the status quo can cost. We have nothing left to gain by pretending it’s working.

Trump’s 2024 coalition was a loan. The bill just came due.



Republicans lost more than just a midterm election on Tuesday night. They lost an essential part of the coalition that put them in power. And if they respond by blaming fraud, bad luck, or the usual midterm headwinds, you may as well start planning for another defeat in 2028.

This election is not a story about swing voters suddenly falling in love with Democrats. It’s about the Trump coalition hemorrhaging support from its base, and that is a much bigger problem. It is also one the Republican establishment seems uniquely incapable of confronting.

Presidents lose midterms. That is nothing new. What is new is losing voters from your base on an unprecedented scale.

In 2024, Donald Trump won with a coalition that included Gen X by 11 points, young men, and Hispanic men who had grown tired of the Democrats’ cultural insanity and economic failures. Those voters did not sign up for the latest corporate Republican seminar on how to lose gracefully.

They voted for mass deportations, law and order, accountability, and — most importantly — no new wars. Remember that campaign promise?

Did they get what they voted for?

The first two years of the Trump administration have seen some genuine, remarkable accomplishments. The FBI reports that murders fell by roughly 18% in 2025. Illegal border crossings have sunk to almost nothing. Don’t discount those achievements.

But where is the promised accountability for the abuses of the Biden and Obama years? Where is the follow-through on the Epstein files? Why do Republicans always seem to discover new procedural hurdles whenever the voters ask them to deliver on their promises?

And then there’s Iran.

Let me be clear: The Iranian regime is evil. Few people have been as consistently vocal on this issue as I have. But it’s one thing to use American air power to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon and quite another to drag our military and economy into a monthslong quagmire with no end in sight and no clear definition of victory.

What does winning look like? When is the mission over? What, exactly, are Americans being asked to sacrifice?

Meanwhile, Republicans still haven’t figured out how to govern. They excel at being a loud minority. Give them a Democrat to denounce, a hearing to stage, or a fundraising email to send, and they have all the energy in the world. Give them power, and they start explaining why they can’t give the base what they asked for.

Here is the question at the heart of Tuesday’s electoral wipeout: Is the GOP a populist party that answers to its voters, or a corporate party that strings the base along when it’s convenient? We cannot keep pretending these are the same thing.

RELATED: Iowa picks a Democrat senator

Photo by Scott Morgan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Look at South Carolina. Trump backed Darline Graham, sister of the late Lindsey Graham, for the Senate seat, and she went on to lose in one of the most humiliating Republican defeats imaginable. A completely preventable slap in the face to the president’s own base.

Tarrant County, Texas, is another example. That county has been a Republican stronghold, and it swung 30 points to the Democrats. You cannot blame a shift like that on voter fraud or independents.

Democrats didn’t need to reinvent themselves to capitalize on Republican failure. They borrowed the language of affordability and accountability while their ideological vanguard — represented by Democratic Socialist candidates across the country — kept moving left. When they take power, expect the mask to drop in a hurry. Investigations, lawfare, and political retaliation will be the order of the day.

To end on a high note, such as it is, we are not going to lose the Republic overnight. As long as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito remain on the Supreme Court, the constitutional order will stay more or less where it is. Without 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats can only do so much.

Presidents lose midterms. That is nothing new. What is new is losing voters from your base on an unprecedented scale. The White House needs to have a serious conversation about what happened if they want to stop this problem from getting worse.

President Trump needs to remember who put him in office. The historic coalition that made his presidency possible can take its support elsewhere if he does not follow through for them.

Republicans need to ask why its own voters abandoned them. And this time, they might try listening to the answers.

The difference between red and blue states is a winning message for Republicans



Affordability is consistently rated voters’ number one concern in the midterms, but you don’t hear much about it from Republicans.

There is good reason for this. Messaging on the economy and cost of living is tricky: The administration and this Congress have an impressive record to run on and statistics that show people are better off now than they were two years ago. However, making that case risks alienating voters who are dissatisfied with their own economic circumstances and frustrated by easily observable metrics — like the price of gas and groceries — that suggest the economy is treading water at best.

Blue states show what happens when governments are free to make democratic socialist policies reality.

Yet conservatives should not give up and let Democrats sell their half-baked socialist ideas as the real path to great affordability. The opposite is true. Conservatives know that those policies contributed to the economic misery of the Biden administration and that if they gain power, they will only make economic recovery harder.

That’s why conservatives must first acknowledge that geopolitical energy shocks are eroding good progress on prices and then lean into showing where the cost of living in the United States remains the biggest problem and explain why.

This new ad by Independent Women’s Voice and Unleash Prosperity Now does just that. It zeroes in on a chart built from data from the American Presidential Project and World Population Review, exposing the relationship between high cost of living and areas that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.

What it shows is that the higher the concentration of Harris voters, the higher the cost of living — while red areas that most supported Trump enjoy the greatest levels of affordability.

Voters should recognize that those relationships aren’t an accident: States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have pursued high regulation, high tax, high spending policies, and those Democratic policies make life more expensive.

Of course, Americans generally are frustrated by the price of gas and blame U.S. actions in Iran. Yet federal policy and the international scene don’t explain why gas is $6.28 on average in California and just $3.84 in Texas. Nor does it explain why gas prices under Democrats when there was no war were nearly as high as they are now.

Electricity prices tell a similar story, with California residents paying $27.04 per kilowatt-hour while Texans pay $9.79.

Same with housing: The average California house costs a jaw-dropping $761,538 compared to $296,424 in Texas. Sure, part of that is attributable to California’s unrivaled natural beauty, but it also reflects policy decisions that have made the state uniquely and needlessly expensive.

Blue states embrace restrictionist policies not just on energy, but on housing and business climates that make it more expensive for businesses to operate and citizens to live. Heavy regulations, high minimum wages, and union rules make everything cost more.

RELATED: The drama doesn't end on Election Day

Moor Studio/Getty Images

Blue states tax their citizens more and have bloated government bureaucracies that discourage innovation and slow everything down. Blue states have also disproportionately tolerated fraud, crime, and illegal immigration, which burden state governments and taxpayers, as well as diminish the quality of life.

That’s why affordability is such a big problem, particularly in blue states. And it’s those same policies — and worse — that Democrats running for Congress and governorships are proposing today, and which would inevitably send America in the wrong direction.

In contrast, this administration and Congress have advanced policies designed to make life more affordable for everyone. Every taxpayer benefits from the provisions in the Working Families Tax Cuts that enabled people to keep more of what they earn, whether it was tips, overtime shifts, Social Security benefits, or higher child tax credits and lower overall rates. This administration has made herculean efforts to eradicate waste, not just by ending fraud but by ripping out departments, programs, and systems that made waste and fraud systemic.

While Americans are just starting to see the benefits of such efforts, the media works to obscure how these reforms will pay dividends for years to come. But most voters know that these efforts are worthwhile, especially compared to how Democrats who had a choice either chose to turn a blind eye to this waste, or were themselves corrupt or incompetent.

Affordability is a messaging battle the GOP should be fighting now and must continue to fight to prevent Democratic policies based on promised freebies without any sound way to pay for them or any thought to the harms they would trigger. Those promises are a gift-wrapped box filled with poisonous snakes: appealing on the outside, but dangerous once opened.

Blue states show what happens when governments are free to make democratic socialist policies reality — and far from advancing affordability, it’s a road that leads to skyrocketing costs and less livable communities. The GOP should ensure voters recognize this reality.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

The drama doesn't end on Election Day



I hate to be the bearer of bad news. I know we all want the election madness to end — at least those of us who are not political consultants, pollsters, potential candidates, and reporters — but it is not over on November 3.

In fact, it is just beginning. Because Election Day no longer decides anything: It is merely the dividing line between one political campaign and the next.

I will be glad when Election Day has come and gone, but I’m not so naive as to believe that the vitriol will subside on Nov. 4.

Even worse, elections are no longer about policy or about determining the future of the country. Instead they have become one of two things: either a referendum on President Trump or a verdict on whose ads were most effective in destroying the opposition candidate.

Let’s skin the last skunk first. Political advertising as a general rule is the reason decent American citizens all despise politics — the dark art of getting elected.

Dirty ads are nothing new. We all remember the Willie Horton ad that helped get George H.W. Bush (R) elected president over Gov. Michael Dukakis (D) in 1988, and there are numerous other examples through the years, including LBJ’s famous “Daisy” ad that aired only once, linking his opponent to the threat of nuclear war.

But in general, dirty ads used to be a relatively small part of a campaign, held in reserve as a last desperate measure to save a flailing campaign or a single kill shot to disable a flailing opponent permanently. Not any more. These days, with the addition of named but virtually anonymous super PACs in the mix, the dirty ads air continuously from Labor Day till Election Day, with one aim only: to damage, undermine, and ultimately destroy the reputation of the opposition candidate.

Here in Montana, it wasn’t unusual in years past for candidates to run dignified campaigns that stressed issues and positive values. But those days may be over. And we’ll find out whether dirty politics pays off.

The campaign of Democrat Sam Forstag for the House seat being vacated by Rep. Ryan Zinke has been nothing but disgusting. The advertising being run on his behalf has smeared Republican candidate Aaron Flint with reckless disregard for the truth. One of the ads essentially asks, “Why do you think they call him For Sale Flint?” "They" don’t bother to answer, so I will. "They" call him that because Forstag’s supporters are making the claim without evidence.

Oh sure, the ads are well made and will probably convince some voters that Aaron Flint is corrupt, but there is no evidence other than that he takes campaign contributions from companies that Forstag opposes. But accepting lawful campaign contributions is not evidence that a candidate is for sale and never has been. In my opinion, such ads making baseless claims ought to disqualify the candidate they are backing. At the very least, they ought to make voters wary of candidates who manipulate voters with demagogic rhetoric and empty words.

RELATED: If Republicans can’t get Wyoming right, what are they fighting for?

Bobboz/iStock/Getty Images

Has Aaron Flint responded in kind? To an extent, yes, by pointing out that Forstag is not just a smokejumper as he portrays himself, but also a paid lobbyist for left-wing groups such as the ACLU. But Flint’s ads were launched well after Forstag’s started airing, and thank goodness they were, because without firing back, Flint would have been allowing his opponent to gain the upper hand by taking the low road. And here’s the key difference: Forstag’s ads are guessing about Flint’s supposed future behavior, whereas Flint’s ads are just stating facts about Forstag’s actual past behavior.

So yes, I will be glad when Election Day has come and gone, but I’m not so naive as to believe that the vitriol will subside on Nov. 4.

The partisan divide has become seemingly unbridgeable, and no matter what the results are on Tuesday, the temptation for politicians (and yes, for the rest of us) to paint political opponents as motivated by greed or stupidity will continue unabated. Nothing will change. If Republicans lose seats, Democrats will proclaim that America has repudiated Trump. If Republicans gain seats, Trump will claim vindication. And if the results are mixed, both parties will somehow manage to declare victory.

So as you are watching the election returns, consider this: Maybe it’s about time we think about what kind of results we want to see beyond who wins and who loses. Those are important, but even more important is restoring dignity to the electoral process itself.

It is not corrupt politicians we need to worry about; it is a corrupt system that encourages division, discord, and deceit. And it won’t go away unless voters stop rewarding the tactics they profess to despise.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

The midterms could make homelessness the new bipartisan issue



As election returns roll in, political analysts will undoubtedly focus on the deep partisan divisions over the cost of energy, the Iran War, support for Israel, and immigration. Most of it will predict two more years of gridlock between Congress and the White House.

Whatever the balance of power in Congress, a new consensus could emerge on homelessness. The conditions are ripe: a Republican administration dedicated to better outcomes for both the homeless and the public and Democrats incentivized to show their constituents that they are no longer ignoring a crisis at its worst in blue strongholds like Seattle and San Francisco.

The only results that matter are whether Washington finally stops counting dollars spent on homelessness and starts counting the people it helps escape it.

Even so, change won’t come easily. Expecting a Democratic takeover in Congress, the homelessness activists who brought us billions in wasteful spending and worsening outcomes are already urging lawmakers to undo the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s performance-based funding reforms.

Most people recognize that homelessness should not be a red or blue issue. The two primary causes of homelessness — severe mental illness and substance use disorder — impact most Americans in some way. Homelessness happens to black and white Americans, young and old, in big cities and small towns.

The heart of the partisan divide on homelessness is how to solve the problem. Republicans want to spend less on ineffective and inefficient programs and refocus on drug addiction and mental illness treatment. Democratic activists insist that the current Housing First model (the provision of permanent supportive housing without treatment or sobriety requirements) is working and want to spend more on it.

No matter who is in office, the situation on the ground has changed. Americans across the political spectrum, who have seen the effects of a decade of increasing homelessness in their neighborhoods, are no longer inclined to take the activists at their word.

Our recent report brings hope that, if both parties work together for commonsense reform, they can achieve what the taxpayers and voters really want, which is to alleviate the suffering on America’s streets. Across the country, we can help more people get off the street and rebuild their lives, while ensuring federal and state governments eliminate waste and spend taxpayer money efficiently.

The report shows that most of the homelessness funding from the federal government is spent on inputs: how many beds facilities have, how many people they have hired, how many homeless people check into their facilities.

RELATED: The case for optimism on Election Day

Sergey Shambulin/Getty Images

But the local entities that distribute federal funding do a poor job of tracking outcomes, especially considering the amount of money spent. How many people are getting jobs? How many people walk out with better health or are able to return to their families having beaten their addiction? No one can say. Meanwhile executives at ineffective homelessness nonprofits make more money than ever, while the homeless languish.

This is where Republicans and Democrats can come together. President Trump has emphasized the need for outcomes in federal homelessness funding, with a particular focus on treatment for addiction and mental illness, economic self-sufficiency, and public safety. Meanwhile Democrats concerned about protecting the less fortunate should see targets in the nonprofit executives getting rich at taxpayer expense and victims in the homeless people they exploit.

And before anyone says it, yes, this can be done. Daniel Lurie, the mayor of San Francisco, is hardly conservative, but he has offered some of the same outcome-based reforms as Trump, notably mandated treatment, street enforcement, and a rollback of low-barrier harm reduction. To achieve this, Lurie has had to reject the radical demands of homeless activists in his own city. If he and Trump can align on anything, lawmakers in Washington ought to be able to do the same.

As Washington considers voting outcomes on Wednesday morning, more than 745,000 Americans will have spent the night on the streets. For them, the only results that matter are whether Washington finally stops counting dollars spent on homelessness and starts counting the people it helps escape it.