Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why I left the Republican Party after 20 years to vote independent

Opinion

Republican, Democratic and independent options

"I'm tired of only being given a binary choice every election or holding my nose to vote for the 'lesser of two evils,'” writes LaLiberte.

selimaksan/Getty Images

LaLiberte is a freelance writer.

Allow me to introduce myself: I’m a white, middle-aged suburban grandmother, the granddaughter of a coal miner and daughter of a retired auto worker and Navy veteran.

I’m part of the demographic that the Republican Party claims to represent. In fact, I was an election official and registered Republican for 20 years.

But the “Party of Lincoln” is now a party of sociopaths. They lost me a long time ago through their narrow-mindedness, greed and bigotry, and I have voted third-party or independent since the 2000 elections. I voted for Ralph Nader that year.


Yep, that was me.

I also volunteered with both of Bernie Sanders’ campaigns.

Yeah, that was me, too.

But I’m not a “bro” of any kind, nor am I an “entitled millennial” who just wants free stuff and has no idea how the world works.

It is precisely because I have been out in the world and experienced how things really work that I can no longer support establishment candidates of either party.

The difference between myself and most other people in my demographic is that I have been able to identify the real enemies of the people and the dangerous policies they enacted, and they aren’t who you’ve been conditioned to believe they are.

I remember proudly going to the polls with my father shortly after my 18th birthday to vote for Ronald Reagan in my very first election.

He seemed like a nice guy. I grew up watching his movies on late night TV with my dad. His policy proposals made sense to me at the time, too. Of course making it easier to be a business owner by removing regulations and other barriers to commerce would work.

But his policies weren’t really aimed at small-business owners. They were marketed to them so politicians could get elected to enact pro-corporate policies that hurt workers on the floor while transferring insane amounts of wealth up to the C-suite.

The trickle-down was really a drip-drip as we scrambled to catch the drops that fell from a table we set but would never be seated at.

I believed the lie that we lived in a meritocracy, that getting a good education and working hard was all it took to get ahead. Instead, my generation is the first in the history of our country to be economically worse off than their parents.

As a single mother at 22 years old, I went back to school to get a computer science degree. I wanted to give my son the life I had been raised to believe was in front of me by a generation of people who heard the knock of opportunity and then slammed and locked the door behind them.

At 58, I still owe $46,000 in student loan debt that will probably only die with me. My student loan has been sold more times than I can count, and each new “owner” adds $5,000 to the balance.

I also lived in a “right to work” state, a policy which is painted as pro-worker but is actually anti-union and pro-business. It also meant that I could be fired at-will with little recourse. The trick at the time was to offer health insurance after a trial employment period of 90 days, and then let people go just before they qualified so employers wouldn’t have to pay for their health insurance.

Apparently, it’s cheaper to retrain than to retain.

My husband had insurance with his job, but it wouldn’t cover our children. Covering me would have required out-of-pocket premiums of more than $300 per month because I was a “woman of child-bearing age.” The cost of child care was nearly as much as I made working full time, so after our third child was born, I became a stay-at-home mom.

We filed for bankruptcy in 1998 after I was injured badly enough to require surgery but didn’t have an extra $20,000 lying around to pay for it. The only debt that couldn't be discharged was my student loan.

I was 45 years old and divorced before I landed my first job with health coverage. Then, my bank account was frozen and wages garnished over my student loan debt, so I took on a second job. The result was that I worked 18 hours a day, seven days a week, to barely pay for a two-bedroom apartment that I only occupied long enough to shower and sleep for a few hours.

It also resulted in a repetitive motion injury that threatened to disable me.

While recovering, I had an opportunity to travel overseas. Former employers had retired and returned to their home country, one of those evil “socialist” countries in Europe with universal health care, paid family leave, subsidized child care, and tuition-free higher education. They invited me to visit, all-inclusive, and I ended up staying. I found an opportunity to start over on several levels, and I took it.

Since that time, I've been working remotely as an independent contractor (read: gig worker) and dividing my time between there and the United States.

I could go back to school tomorrow anywhere in Europe for the cost of a small administrative fee and the price of my textbooks, no debt incurred. In the 13 years that I’ve lived there, my largest medical expense has been 150 euros for a minor surgery to find out if I had cancer (I didn’t).

I experience, first-hand, those policies that we’re told are too expensive and will never work in our country, the “exceptional” America that is the greatest, freest, and most prosperous nation in the history of ever.

I also realized the extent to which we’ve been lied to about what was, what is, and what is possible, and that is what I will fight and vote against in every election for as long as I live.

I’ve been accused of hating America. I’ve been accused of being brainwashed by communism, socialism and every other “ism” that is demonized to cover up the ineffectiveness and greed that has overtaken my home country.

I love America, but I’m angry. You should be, too.

I will continue to vote for independent candidates because:

  • I’m sick of hypocrisy, projection and obstructionism.
  • The people in the party of “small government” don't mind intruding into people’s bedrooms, schools, workplaces and private lives when it suits them.
  • I understand that it’s as difficult to feel empathy when you don’t have a soul as it is to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you don’t have any boots.
  • I realize that investing in health and education instead of burying people in debt results in greater opportunity, a more productive workforce and a better quality of life.
  • I love my children and grandchildren, and I want them to have what I could never give them in a country where the deck is stacked against everyone but politicians and their corporate masters.
  • I’m tired of only being given a binary choice every election or holding my nose to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”

I would rather vote for something I believe in. Wouldn't you?

I’m also tired of being accused of “wasting my vote” or needing to “educate myself.” I’ve found that the more informed you are, the less likely you are to fall for their nonsense.

That’s why they demonize higher education and make it so out of reach for most of us.

That’s why they work so hard to keep us too tired and distracted to care and too apathetic to vote.

That’s why every time an independent gets close to challenging the status quo, they move the goalposts.

I will give Republicans credit for one thing: I may not like what they say or do, but they are great at messaging and playing the long game.

While Democrats wring their hands, line their pockets and pay lip service to being everything to everyone, the Republican Party has quietly and systematically run a ground game that packs the legislatures and courts from the local level up in ways that will be felt for generations if we don’t do something now.

Every election, we’re told that it is the most important election ever and that it’s no time to challenge the system. Let’s be incremental and pragmatic instead. I've heard that nonsense before every election for the past 40 years that I’ve been voting, and the situation just keeps becoming more dire.

If not now, then when?

The only way things will ever change is if we stop voting against our own interests and support candidates who represent the possibilities and promise of America rather than Big Business and business as usual.

I’m going to be honest, though: Independents will be long shots for the White House until we get money out of politics and remove the systemic electoral barriers erected by the establishment.

But we can start playing a long game of our own and beat them at theirs by electing independent and unaffiliated candidates to legislatures, judiciaries and executive positions at every level of government.

The time is now, but the future is only in your hands if you’re willing to reach out and grab it.

Read More

The interview that could change history

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles looks on during a bilateral meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Polish President Karol Nawrocki in the Oval Office at the White House on Sept. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.

Alex Wong/Getty Images/TCA

The interview that could change history

Susie Wiles has a reputation. Ask anyone in Washington and words like “strategic,” “disciplined,” and “skilled” come up. She’s widely held to be one of the most effective tacticians in modern politics.

She’s also known for her low-key, low-drama energy, preferring to remain behind-the-scenes as opposed to preening for cameras like so many other figures in President Trump’s orbit.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less