Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Independence Day can celebrate the spirit of independents

Independence Day can celebrate the spirit of independents
Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

In 2026 America needs a Declaration of Independents, one that will mark the 250th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence. Yes, our great country, mired in deep conflicts, entrenched polarization in Washington, and pathetic hostility needs to turn to individuals and groups which are driven by an independent frame of mind to rescue us.


In the last Gallup poll 41 percent of Americans identified as independents. The independent frame of mind that is so sorely needed should not in itself reflect a particular ideological point of view. Thus it should not be a centrist point of view which reflects a middle ground between the Democrats and Republicans. Nor should it be a radical centrist point of view which reflects a unique synthesis of both parties or some standpoint that transcends them but still preserves core ideas from both. What is needed instead is a burst of independent candidates and organizations that stand for points of view that differ from the two mainstream parties. There might be six independent points of view, including libertarian, green, moderate centrist and radical centrist.

Ideally the independent candidates for office would win races and reduce the power of the two major parties. The upshot would be that Democrats and Republicans would face challenges from many independent perspectives, and they would lose many of the races. Attacked from so many points of view, they would not be able to withstand the onslaught.

This is ideally how things would evolve. The goal would not be to ruin one or both parties. Instead, it would be to put both parties in check and compel both parties to work with the independents in their district or state or nationally to reach tripartisan solutions to problems. Indeed, it is time to jettison the goal of achieving bipartisan solutions because it rests on the controversial assumption that there are only two legitimate points of view to be reconciled. This is not the case in the United Kingdom, France, Germany or Israel. We must strive to make it not the case in the United States.

The challenge will be to cultivate and celebrate an attitude of independence that motivates enough citizens to vote for the independent candidates without blasting the two major parties. For what is needed is not a war against the Democrats and Republicans but an honest departure from them. The reason this strategy might work over a five to ten year time period is that there would be no consistent target for Democrats and Republicans to bring down. There would only be a temperament to criticize, and it would be hard to criticize a temperament that revolved around freedom of thought and disappointment with rigidity, hostility, and dysfunction.

The attitude that would be targeted would revolve around what used to unite us -- a love of independence. The Declaration of Independents we need will rally around the value of independence that grounded our country 250 years ago. Whether the issue is the environment, guns, immigration, family policy, foreign policy or racial relations, we need a third force in American politics that will shift the focus from the boxing ring fight between the Democrats and Republicans to a challenge to both parties from multiple ideological points of view.

In the United States, what we need now is not so much multiple parties but multiple independent perspectives. Parties are organizational machines and are very useful for the Democrats and Republicans, especially for raising money. A frontal attack from another party is not likely to succeed. We need the same ingenuity which defeated the British in the Revolutionary War -- attack the enemy from a range of places at once using guerilla tactics. Head-on warfare would have failed against the stronger British armed forces.

Likewise today. You can't go after the Democrats and Republicans head-on. Instead, individual races need candidates with an independent temperament which stands in different ideological places. Together, however, these independent voices will gather steam and leverage the momentum of other independent candidates and groups. Gradually, the independent temperament will strengthen, until it becomes a third force in American politics.

Structural changes will be needed in the electoral system, including ranked choice voting and open primaries. But independent candidates and voters and moderates from both parties need a broader strategy to move forward. Although there need not be and should not be one orchestrating organization, a set of organizations, individual candidates and the media, traditional and social, can create the revolution.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less