Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The only game in town

Opinion

Sen. Mike Lee

Normally, Sen. Mike Lee would sail to reelection in conservative Utah. But things might be different this year.

Pool/Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."

There is an old bit of folklore in which Canada Bill Jones, a 19th century gambler, was asked why he was playing in a game he knew was crooked. “Because it’s the only game in town,” he was said to reply. The same response might be elicited today from Democrats in Utah, and possibly in Wyoming.

In Utah, faced with the almost certain reelection of Sen. Mike Lee, an election-denying, Trump-worshiping, conspiracy-promoting archconservative, Democrats chose not to put forward their own candidate but rather endorse another conservative, Evan McMullin, for the seat. In a state that Donald Trump carried by 20 points, even Lee’s texts to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows encouraging the overturn of the 2020 presidential election would not persuade freedom-loving, rule-of-law Utah Republicans to vote for a Democrat.

McMullin, however, just might be a different story. A former CIA officer and one-time Republican who mounted a quixotic, independent anti-Trump presidential campaign in 2016, McMullin got less than 1 percent of the vote nationally, but more than 20 percent in Utah. Unlike Lee, he has come out favoring voting rights legislation, opposing partisan gerrymandering, toughening ethics rules, endorsing clean air and water legislation, and eliminating dark money in politics. In accepting the Democratic endorsement, McMullin said, “I’m humbled and grateful to the Democratic delegates today for their decision to support this growing cross-partisan coalition. Today, and moving forward, this coalition represents a majority of Utahns who want to replace Senator Mike Lee. He is a threat to the republic and consistently fails to represent our interests and our values.”


But McMullin is no liberal — he might not even qualify as a centrist. He favors beefed-up military spending, reduced spending in other government sectors, balanced budget legislation and increased border security. He was unabashedly anti-abortion but has moderated that position by admitting that the repeal of Roe v. Wade would spark a health care crisis.

In fact, since his acceptance of Democratic support in April, many of McMullin’s more conservative positions have softened. But that, after all, is the point. Although many of McMullin’s priorities will remain anathema to the left, especially the far left, in running a campaign that is coalition-based, he must respect the needs of all its members. That means that if McMullin enters the Senate, a door that was regularly slammed in the face of Democrats will now be open. Lee, on other hand, is beholden only to the extreme right.

Even with Democratic support, McMullin faces a difficult campaign — but not an impossible one. Although the 877,000 Republican registered voters dwarf the 234,000 for Democrats, almost 475,000 Utah voters are registered as non-aligned. If McMullin can peel away even a fifth of the registered Republicans, persuade Democrats to vigorously back him, and win a decent chunk of independents, he has a chance for a major upset. At the very least, he has forced Lee to run a genuine campaign in which at some point he will be forced to answer for his post-election behavior, including texts to Meadows favoring the submission of alternate slates of pro-Trump electors on Jan. 6, 2021.

To date, Lee has been able to oil his way by with not very persuasive denials to friendly media outlets. “At no point in any of those [tweets] was I engaging in advocacy,” Lee protested to the Deseret News. “I wasn't in any way encouraging them to [submit alternate slates of electors]. I just asked them a yes or no question.” If, however, the race polls closely enough that Lee is forced to agree to debates, McMullin will be far less accepting of a statement that has been refuted by Lee’s own communications with a fellow conspirator.

In Wyoming, another previously Darth Vader-esque conservative, Rep. Liz Cheney, is facing likely defeat in the Republican primary to retain her seat. In the latest polls, Cheney trails Trump-backed Harriet Hageman by more than 20 points. Hageman has made certain there can be no doubt as to her subservience to the idolatry-demanding Trump. “He was the greatest president of my lifetime, and I am proud to have been able to renominate him in 2020. And I’m proud to strongly support him today.”

Her other positions are less clear other than vague assurances that she, not Cheney, is the true conservative in the race. But positions are not important — the lead entry on her website is simply “Donate Now to Defeat Liz Cheney.”

Cheney, as unlikely a hero to the left as is possible to imagine, has been actively soliciting Democrats to switch party registration to vote for her in the August primary. If that does not work, she may well run in November as an independent. (In 2010, Lisa Murkowski lost a primary to a Tea Party Republican but won the general election with a write-campaign.) Unlike in Utah, Wyoming’s Democrats, who have even a larger registration deficit, are not flocking to Cheney’s side. Wyoming Democratic Party spokesman Dean Ferguson condemned Cheney for consistently voting with Trump. “She doesn’t share our values,” he harrumphed.

For Cheney to win, she will need a larger segment of Republican voters than McMullin and an extremely robust turnout among Democrats, who often do not even bother to put up candidates for state office. Ferguson does not seem to have grasped that a principled conservative congresswoman with whom he shares little ideological ground is better than one with no real principles and a similar ideological disconnect.

Whether McMullin and Cheney win, they have introduced an interesting wrinkle to the political process. In deep-red states such Alabama or Mississippi, Democrats have no hope of one of their candidates defeating even the most extreme Republicans. But in each of those states, as well as a number of others, including Mitch McConnell’s Kentucky, Democratic and Republican voter registration is a good deal closer – and in some cases, as in Kentucky, almost identical.

Many Democrats will blanch at the prospect of voting for a conservative, but it will be a good deal easier to bridge the ideological divide in Congress if the first steps are taken before elections.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less