In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses thermostatic politics to explain what it means and how it works.
Podcast: What is thermostatic politics?


In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses thermostatic politics to explain what it means and how it works.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.
From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.
The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.
Former U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin addressed the convention by video, recognizing the importance of competitive independent candidates and the opportunity to shift political power beyond the two-party structure.
Other current and former officeholders shared perspectives on independent movement-building and governance, including Utah County Commissioner Amelia Powers Gardner; former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey; and former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who closed the convention with reflections on what independent candidates and political organizations need to win.
Among other speakers were John Opdycke of Open Primaries; Greg Orman, former independent U.S. Senate candidate and author of A Declaration of Independents; Lindsey Williams Drath, CEO of the Forward Party; Amanda Griffiths, vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee; Manu Meel of Bridge USA; Adam Brandon of the Independent Center; Ryan Rabah of Independents Win; Jennifer Esteban of United Independents and many more.
A central theme of the convention was defining political independence as more than simply not being affiliated with a major party.
Presentations explored independence as a standard of representation: the ability of public officials to exercise independent judgment and serve constituents without undue influence from party leadership, major donors or special interests.
One framework introduced a second dimension to the conventional left-right political spectrum. While the horizontal X-axis represents ideological differences, a vertical Y-axis measures civic integrity, including transparency, accountability, ethical conduct, and resistance to corruption.
The framework offers a practical basis for cooperation among political leaders who may disagree substantially on policy but share an interest in improving the integrity of public institutions. In this sense, the independent movement can also be understood as a movement for corruption-free government and more accountable representation.
Author and former presidential candidate Marianne Williamson reinforced these themes in her keynote, emphasizing government's responsibility to prevent harm, reduce suffering, improve quality of life and steward the natural world.
One of the convention's central programs showcased the 2026 Independent Slate, which Independents Win PAC assembled after an extensive review of independent federal candidates to identify those that demonstrate both alignment with independent representation and electoral viability.
The seven-candidate slate includes Senate candidates Dan Osborn of Nebraska, Seth Bodnar of Montana, Todd Achilles of Idaho and Brian Bengs of South Dakota, alongside House candidates Kevin Kiley of California, Bill Hill of Alaska and Sarah Zabel of Idaho.
The presentation gave the national independent community a chance to hear from serious congressional campaigns as part of a coordinated slate, not as isolated candidacies. Polling in several of these races indicates meaningful competitiveness.
The candidates also illustrated a larger strategy discussed throughout the convention: developing an Independent Fulcrum Caucus in Congress.
In a closely divided House or Senate, a small group of independent legislators could hold consequential votes, negotiate across party lines and help form issue-specific governing coalitions without being institutionally bound to either major party. The strategy seeks to translate independent electoral victories into meaningful legislative influence.
Supporting the slate through November became an immediate priority emerging from the gathering. Readers can review the candidates and examine available polling at Independents Win.
INC ’26 also introduced initiatives intended to address longer-term weaknesses in independent political infrastructure.
The Better Governance Institute presented its developing Independent & Corruption-Free Certification Program, intended to establish measurable standards for ethical public leadership. The framework addresses conflicts of interest, financial transparency, bribery, personal enrichment, misuse of public resources and other forms of political corruption.
A second initiative, Independent America, is developing a national organizing platform to recruit, equip, and coordinate independent organizers and local chapters. The objective is to create durable organizing capacity that persists between election cycles, rather than requiring campaigns and civic organizations to continually rebuild local infrastructure.
Independent America is preparing a national pilot for individuals interested in establishing local chapters and developing independent organizing capacity in their communities.
Both initiatives reflect an understanding that lasting political competition requires more than successful individual candidacies. It requires standards, leadership development, professional infrastructure and ongoing civic participation.
Beyond the formal presentations, INC ’26 placed considerable emphasis on relationship building among stakeholders. Shared meals, breakout discussions, networking sessions, receptions, and a closing gala gave organizers, funders, candidates, and organizational leaders opportunities to build connections and explore collaboration.
The program also incorporated original artistic performances, including DPAK's movement anthem “Together We Rise,” Naia Kete's “Proud,” Isabella Braveheart's spoken-word performance “Patriot” and Sophia Life's “Power With.” These contributions explored civic identity, patriotism and the cultural dimensions of cooperation across a growing independent movement.
The gathering concluded with commitments to continue supporting independent candidates through November, strengthen cooperation through a United Independent Coalition and advance organizing and institutional development throughout 2027.
After November, the next major electoral milestone will be 2028, when the movement aims to field a stronger generation of competitive candidates, supported by more developed national infrastructure. The fifth Independent National Convention is planned for Washington, D.C., in September 2028.
The significance of INC ’26 will ultimately be measured by the outcomes that follow: electoral results, functioning partnerships, stronger institutions and sustained organizing capacity.
For now, the convention provided a substantive view of an independent political sector increasingly recognizing opportunities to coordinate its otherwise separate efforts. Whether those efforts develop into lasting political influence remains an open question, but the work underway across the movement is becoming more organized and interconnected.
Main-stage presentations and performances from INC ’26 will begin publishing free for public viewing within the next week. Visit IndependentNationalConvention.com to access the recordings as they become available on the INC ‘26 Content page.
Christopher Life is the founder and CEO of United Independents and founder and executive producer of the Independent National Convention.

U.S. Deaf athletes celebrated at the Opening Ceremony of the 25th Summer Deaflympics on November 15, 2025, in Tokyo, Japan.
Last month was National Deaf Awareness Month.
It is a time to raise awareness of Deaf culture and language and to advocate for the rights and inclusion of Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals.
Since 1997, we have celebrated National Deaf Awareness Month every September.
Despite nearly thirty years of promoting Deaf Awareness Month, Deaf activists' unwavering dedication remains truly inspiring. We believe they still understand the frustration USA Deaflympians feel.
The most disappointing moment of 2025 for our Deaflympians was the lack of national news media coverage of the 2025 Summer Deaflympics in Tokyo, Japan, held November 15 to 26. Despite Team USA bringing home 36 medals and competing against 81 countries, major news outlets (outside of YouTube) ran no on-air reports or feature articles during or after the Games. By comparison, the Olympics and Paralympics consistently receive extensive daily coverage and athlete profiles across television and online media. This absence limits public awareness and recognition of the Deaflympics in the United States.
Therefore, Congress and the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) ought to reassess the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 1998 (the “Ted Stevens Act”) to include the Deaflympics.
No. 1 - Consistency with the Olympic Movement: The IOC fully recognizes the Deaflympics; therefore, U.S. law must do the same.
Law: 36 U.S.C. § 220503(2) is a provision of the Ted Stevens Act that requires the USOPC to have the statutory mandate to “coordinate and develop amateur athletic activity in the United States, directly related to international amateur athletic competition.”
Fact: Since 1924, the Deaflympics have been the world’s second-oldest Olympic-style event, following the Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has officially sanctioned the Deaflympics since 1955. However, the 1998 expansion of the Ted Stevens Act explicitly mandated USOPC governance over the Olympic and Paralympic Games but omitted the Deaflympics. In 2001, the IOC granted the International Committee of Sports for the Deaf (ICSD) the right to use the term Deaflympics (formerly the World Games for the Deaf). The USOPC does not officially recognize the Deaflympics, primarily because of governance autonomy and the specific statutory language of the Ted Stevens Act.
Recommendation for Congress: The USA Deaf Sports Federation (USADSF) and the ICSD strongly support including the Deaflympics under the USOPC, viewing it as essential to equity and recognition. The USOPC has neither publicly opposed nor supported such inclusion but has cited legal and structural reasons for maintaining the status quo. Lawmakers should expect broad support from Deaf advocacy groups and some international bodies, though those focused on preserving existing governance distinctions may resist.
No. 2 - Equity for Disabled Athletes: Deaflympians are the only Olympic-style athletes not included in the Ted Stevens Act
Law: 36 U.S.C. § 220503(13) authorizes the USOPC to “encourage and assist amateur athletic programs and competitions for amateur athletes with disabilities”.
Fact: The USOPC does not officially include purely Deaf athletes in its primary Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DE&I) frameworks.
Recommendation for Congress: In the 277-page 2024 Final Report of the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics (CSUSOP), the Commission recommends that “Congress should also further study the challenges faced by deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes and proposals to integrate deaf sports into the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement.”
No. 3 - Congressional Intent of Inclusion: Congress intended to include all Olympic-style sports without exception.
Law: Under the Ted Stevens Act, Congress granted the USOPC exclusive jurisdiction over Olympic-style sports.
Fact: Excluding the Deaflympics from the Ted Stevens Act would not legally require the USOPC to track Deaf athletes or integrate them into its broader equity, resource allocation, and organizational compliance mandates.
Recommendation for Congress: Now is a pivotal moment for Congress to act to address these inequities and prevent another generation of Deaf athletes from being lost to systemic neglect.
No. 4 - Leadership and Legacy: Updating the Act honors Ted Stevens’s legacy of fairness and inclusion.
Law: The 1998 Amendment officially renamed the law the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.
Fact: Senator Stevens introduced Senate Bill 2430 (1998) on the Senate floor on May 22, 1998, and stated:
“World Games for the Deaf--It has been suggested that both the bill and the Committee report which eventually accompanies the bill include language in support of the World Games for the Deaf and of deaf athletes. It is anticipated that this issue will be addressed by consensus before the bill becomes enacted.”
Yet that language never made it into the law.
Recommendation for Congress: The Ted Stevens Act could be amended as follows:
The final 1977 report of the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports (PCOS) recommended recognizing athletic events for individuals with disabilities as legitimate sports competitions for elite, highly trained athletes rather than dismissing them as mere therapy or rehabilitation.
The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 required the U.S. Olympic Committee to “...encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletic programs and competition for handicapped individuals, including, where feasible, the expansion of opportunities for meaningful participation by handicapped individuals in athletic competition programs for able-bodied individuals...”
Additionally, U.S. Deaflympic medalists are ineligible for the USOPC Operation Gold cash stipends awarded to medalists.
Therefore, Congress ought to amend the Ted Stevens Act to explicitly recognize the Deaflympics as an official part of the United States Olympic movement, ensure that Deaflympians receive the same support and representation as Olympians and Paralympians, and require the USOPC to fund and support Deaf athletes. The amended language ought to reference the “Deaflympics” and establish equal access to training, competition opportunities, and promotional activities.
It’s time for Congress and the USOPC to include the Deaflympics in the Act.
Howard Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.

How can leaders who broke the constitutional order, ignored their oath, weakened rights, and harmed the people now ask Americans to forget — and reward them with reelection? The question is not abstract — it goes to the heart of what the Constitution demands from those who swear an oath to uphold it.
The constitutional order is the framework that protects the Republic: three branches, checks and balances, oversight, limits on executive power, and the oath every member of Congress swears — to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet in recent years, Congress has allowed that order to erode. Oversight collapsed. Guardrails bent. Silence replaced accountability. Loyalty to a president replaced loyalty to the Constitution.
But something else has changed too: voters.
Today, people are more politically literate — paying attention to promises made and unkept, roll‑call votes, and the policies that shape their daily lives. Millions have watched rights taken away, the ACA dismantled with nothing replacing it, corruption, executive overreach, and checks and balances ignored. Voters understand the stakes of reelecting leaders who have ignored their needs, weakened their rights, and abandoned their constitutional responsibilities.
The human cost of congressional neglect is nonpartisan — in every state. And the harm is lived. Families struggling with affordability. Communities harmed by compromised agencies. Public health systems strained. DEI protections rolled back. ICE abuses unchecked. The ACA dismantled with no replacement. Voting rights restricted. Election workers threatened. Foreign influence ignored. Inspectors general fired. Free speech attacked. Constitutional responsibilities treated as optional.
Today, Congress includes more than 100 documented election deniers — including a president who promotes it. Election denial and election interference deepen the damage. It rejects the constitutional process for transferring power. Leaders who deny certified results cannot claim loyalty to the Constitution. How can an election denier uphold an oath to the Constitution when election denial itself rejects the constitutional process?
The consequences of this broken order extend beyond domestic policy. The nation is living through a war Americans did not ask for — and Congress did not authorize. Congress failed to restrain unilateral military action, leaving the country in conflict without the constitutional safeguard of congressional approval. Reporters, veterans, communities of color, and entire states feel the weight of decisions made without oversight.
I have tried to hold leaders accountable. I have written to members of Congress across the country, asking whether they are honoring the oath they swore. I asked about rhetoric, the dismantling of the ACA, overreach, corruption, and ignored constitutional responsibilities. Each acknowledged my letters. None answered my questions. Citizens are entitled to answers. But Congress has learned that silence is easier than accountability — hoping voters will forget.
I hear the same frustration from relatives in Texas, who have watched their senator do little to help the people while repeating falsehoods that exhaust voters already overwhelmed by political deception. The pattern is familiar: leaders who break the constitutional order, ignore constituents, and then ask for votes as though the public has forgotten their record. It is exhausting to watch lies flood the airwaves while roll‑call votes and lived experience tell a different story.
It is even more exhausting to watch leaders look into cameras and repeat falsehoods while supporting policies that harm the people and weaken the Republic. Their public statements often contradict their votes, their silence in moments of crisis, and their unwavering support for a president whose overreach has broken constitutional guardrails. Yet these same leaders ask for votes as though their record does not exist. The gap between their words and their record is no longer a political problem — it is a constitutional one.
Americans should sense the desperation in these appeals. When the vice president asks for “one more chance,” and the president promises a $5,000 payment if his party keeps control of Congress, it reveals a troubling truth: they know the damage they have done. They know their record cannot stand on its own. Putting the president’s name on the COVID relief checks worked once. Now they hope money and manufactured loyalty will work again — that voters will forget the broken guardrails, the corruption, and the harm inflicted on the Republic.
This strategy is not new. It reminds me of the old proverb: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Some supporters have voted multiple times for leaders who harmed them — and now openly express regret. They feel misled by promises that never materialized and policies that made their lives harder. Millions now ask: how can leaders who broke the constitutional order, ignored their oath, weakened rights, and harmed the people expect voters to forget — and reelect them? Leaders who did the most damage are counting on voters to forget, forgive, and — as the vice president asked — give them another opportunity to repeat the damage.
The Constitution gives power to the people — not to those who seek to manipulate them. And voters have more power than they realize. They can choose clarity over chaos, courage over intimidation, and truth over noise. They can remember the harm, who caused it, and why. They can refuse to be sidelined by party loyalty, pity, or lies. They can weed through conspiracies, do their research, seek the truth, and protect their voice, their power, and the Republic.
To protect the Republic, voters must vote with clarity — not confusion, not exhaustion, not fear. Clarity comes from political literacy, the civic skill the framers expected of the people. Political literacy means understanding political systems, constitutional responsibilities, and the difference between leadership and loyalty. It means developing critical thinking skills, evaluating media carefully, and recognizing when leaders distort reality to avoid accountability. It means knowing the record — not the rhetoric.
Even if Congress changes, citizens will have to work even harder to demand accountability. A new Congress does not automatically restore constitutional order. It will take determination and vigilance — especially when some say this president ignores accountability altogether. The framers never intended accountability to be optional. They intended it to be enforced by the people.
Someone once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We must reflect on what happens when we repeatedly vote for leaders who denied elections, remained silent in moments of crisis, took away rights, dismantled healthcare, weakened DEI protections, ignored ICE abuses, and allowed corruption to flourish. We may not be able to control every storm around us. But we can decide whether we will surrender our humanity, our hope, our voice, or our joy to it.
Voters must make a plan to vote — and vote. We cannot vote for a leader merely because they ask us to, want us to, or share our party label. We must look at the record. We must remember our power to put the Republic back on course. Protect your voice. Protect your power. Protect the Republic.
George Santayana warned that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Congress is counting on that. They want voters to forget the broken guardrails, the harm, the corruption, and the constitutional neglect. But forgetting is how democracies fail. Remembering is how democracies survive.
The founders warned us: A Republic, if you can keep it. Keeping it requires memory. Keeping it requires vigilance. Keeping it requires clarity. And keeping it requires refusing to forget what Congress hopes we will — because the survival of the Republic depends on what the people choose to remember.
_________________________________________________________________________
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and former principal who has spent her career advancing civic responsibility, equity, and public engagement. She writes about democracy, leadership, and the values that strengthen American communities.

John Kennedy display a sign accusing former Special Counsel Jack Smith of meeting with Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Sept. 29, 2026, in Washington, D.C. The committee is holding the hearing to examine Smith’ s probe into Donald Trump.
Tuesday was supposed to be a big day for Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, a little-known first-term junior Senator whose main claim to fame thus far was the 25 lawsuits he filed against President Joe Biden’s administration in a span of 20 months while Missouri’s attorney general.
But congressional hearings have long been a place not to do actual legislating but to make a name for oneself, and Schmitt was going to take his opportunity on Tuesday, when he got to question former Special Counsel Jack Smith in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Earlier that morning a short news item — just 80 words — popped up on Axios. The headline:
“Sen. Eric Schmitt Is Drawing Buzz as a Possible Vance VP in 2028.”
The body of the story, in part, read:
“First-term Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) — who was a tough-on-crime state attorney general, and now is vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee — has grown close to Vice President Vance and is seen as a top prospect to become a potential 2028 running mate.
We hear the VP views Schmitt, 51, as trustworthy, intelligent, articulate and a deft political operator.”
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about how that glowing — and unsourced — story ended up where it did on the morning of this hearing, but I think it’s safe to assume it wasn’t a coincidence.
Hours later, Schmitt was in the room where it happened, joining his fellow Republican lawmakers in punishing Smith for pursuing charges around Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference and his handling of classified documents.
And the theatrics were amped up to 11. Sen. John Kennedy had already told Smith “You make me want to throw up in my mouth.” Sen. Ted Cruz proclaimed, “Javert from Les Mis would look at you with astonishment.” Sen. Darline Graham used her time to accuse Smith of bullying her late brother, Lindsey Graham.
Your taxpayer dollars at work, folks.
But anyway, this was all leading up to the big moment, when Schmitt was going to drop the smoking gun — alleged texts from someone in Smith’s office showing he was somewhere he shouldn’t have been, and about to do something he shouldn’t have done.
Except he wasn’t. Smith wasn’t in Atlanta in February 2024 for an Atlanta Hawks game. He wasn’t in Atlanta at all. Instead, he’d been at a women’s college basketball game between the University of Maryland and the University of Iowa. Apparently, Schmitt confused the Hawks with the Hawkeyes.
It was an implosion of delicious proportions for the left, but at a time when Republicans and Trump are drowning in a midterm election hellscape of their own making, it also exposed just how desperate MAGA was for a win — any win.
Before Schmitt could finish imploding, MAGA media had already posted to socials their congratulatory dunks on Smith, unaware that the moment they’d been promised hadn’t gone the way it was supposed to.
Fox’s Sean Hannity deleted his post wherein “Schmitt puts Jack Smith on the spot,” and Benny Johnson deleted his (which misspelled the senator’s name) saying “Schmidt just CAUGHT Jack Smith perjuring himself.”
The whole day, it seemed, from the Axios post in the morning, to the influencer posts in the afternoon, was designed to give the MAGA base some much-needed red meat amid a sea of bad poll numbers.
But it seems Republicans don’t have their priorities straight. They’ve given up on actual policy wins that could have helped stave off what may just be a blue monsoon in November, wins that were promised to voters two years ago. All they’ve got left are parlor tricks and subterfuge — and they can’t deliver on that, either.
It was a moment that was meant to go viral, and it did — but for all the wrong reasons.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home