Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why local-level offices need independent candidates

Why local-level offices need independent candidates
Getty Images

Nagel leads the marketing team at Good Party, a company building free tools and a volunteer movement for independent candidates. Prior to his involvement in politics, Jack worked in tech startups, with previous stops at Help Scout and G2.

City governments are not just where Americans feel the most impact of government on their daily lives – they’re the last line of defense against hyper-partisanship. A recent piece in The New York Times revealed a sign of increasing tensions to come: Swing state legislatures this session have passed increasingly partisan agendas without mandates. Local governments, generally non-partisan, are where we can reverse this trend and govern by consensus. These races also provide the perfect platform for independent candidates to emerge as a solution to the two-party system that has devolved into chaos. By recruiting and electing truly independent candidates – those that have no party affiliation or financial backing of partisan special interests – we can foster talent and enthusiasm for a nationwide independent movement.


Early 20th-century progressives sought to make municipal governments – the bodies that have the most impact on the daily lives of the people they represent – more efficient. Today, 22 of the nation’s 30 most populous cities have non-partisan elections. But the promise of local governments escaping partisanship has not panned out. In a study of the San Diego City Council, professor Craig Burnett of Hofstra University found even with a nominally non-partisan council, all but one of the eight city council members consistently voted with their party affiliation. Furthermore, school boards nationwide have become the hotbed of the culture wars with substantial investment in candidates backed by partisan groups such as Moms For Liberty.

The consequences of this development are immense. Local governments hold the power to make decisions that directly impact our day-to-day lives. Increasingly, cities are shifting focus from filling potholes and providing services to wading into national politics. Some governments are even starting to weigh in on foreign policy issues, a far cry from the vision of municipal governments as efficient executors of the public will. This escalating partisanship has resulted in state legislatures punishing local governments with different party affiliations. In Nashville this year, the state attempted to halve the size of the Metro Council in retaliation to the body voting down a proposal to host the RNC in 2024.

Electing truly independent leaders will allow cities to focus on delivering results for their communities. True independents have an opportunity to act in the best interests of their constituents by not taking money from special interests or political parties that may influence their agenda. By refusing money from special interests and political parties, independents can govern based on consensus, eliminate corruption and waste, and prioritize the needs of the people they represent. This approach cultivates good habits in our future leaders, setting good habits for governance.

One of the main obstacles independent candidates face at the national level is their lack of a track record and a popular base to support their campaigns. By starting locally, true independents can gain the necessary experience and demonstrate their ability to govern independently. Plus, these races are winnable – nearly 70 percent of elected offices around the country are left uncontested, and most of these uncontested positions are at the local and regional levels.

This formula has worked elsewhere: Hillary Schieve went from at-large Reno city council to a three-term mayoral incumbent; Calvin Schrage gained experience on the Abbott Loop community council in Alaska to win a state house seat as an independent. Lastly, Ron Nirenberg, the independent mayor of America’s seventh largest city, San Antonio, ran a grassroots, underdog campaign for city council, priming his successful mayoral run.

One organization dedicated to electing more independent candidates around the country with the goal of ending the two-party system is Good Party. This year, they had over 750 participants from around the country say they’re interested in running for local office as independents, and are actively working with 22 individuals on serious mayoral and city council campaigns.

As one of their candidate prospects said, “Winning as an independent is not a moonshot.” By resisting the allure of the noisy federal environment and concentrating on winnable, impactful local races – a nationwide independent movement is just around the corner.

Read More

Declaration of Independence
When, in 2026, the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we should take pride in our collective journey.
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

What Exactly Does "All Men Are Created Equal" Mean in the Declaration of Independence?

I used to think the answer was obvious; it was self-evident. But it's not, at least not in today's political context. MAGA Republicans and Democrats have a very different take on the meaning of this phrase in the Declaration.

I said in my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An America Manifesto, that it is in the interpretation of our founding documents that both the liberal and conservative ideologies that have run throughout our history can be found. This is a perfect example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Washington, DC, skyline
A country in crisis needs to call a truce with its government
Michael Lee/Getty Images

Defending Democracy in the Heart of Democracy - Washington, D.C.

The Crisis in Our Capital

Washington, D.C. is at the center of American democracy. Yet today, its residents — taxpayers, veterans, workers, families, people like you an I, American citizens — are being stripped of their right to self-government. The recent surge of out-of-state National Guard troops into the District under federal order has highlighted a deep flaw in our system: D.C. does not have the same authority to govern itself that the 50 states enjoy.Keith

We are told this militarization is about “public safety,” but violent crime in D.C. is near a 30-year low . What we are witnessing is not a crime-fighting measure, but an unprecedented encroachment on local authority. The consent of the people — the foundation of democracy — is being sidelined to pursue a political or even personal agenda.

The Ethical and Constitutional Problem

Legally, a president can request National Guard support through interstate compacts. But legality is not the same as legitimacy. True democracy requires consent, not unilateral fiat. Under the Home Rule Act, federal control over D.C. is only supposed to last 30 days in emergencies. Yet the use of state-based National Guard units circumvents this safeguard and seems to demonstrate a hidden agenda. This is a loophole — one that undermines D.C.’s right to self-governance and sets a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.

An Urgent Legislative Answer

It is not enough to critique the abuse of power — we must fix it. That is why I have drafted the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act, which closes this loophole and restores constitutional balance. The draft bill is now available for public review on my congressional campaign website:

Read the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act here

This legislation would require explicit, expedited approval from Congress before federal or state National Guard troops can be deployed into the District. It ensures no president — Republican. Democrat or Independent — can bypass the will of the people of Washington, D.C.

This moment also reminds us of a deeper injustice that has lingered for generations: the people of Washington, D.C., remain without full representation in Congress. Over 700,000 Americans—more than the populations of several states—are denied a voting voice in the very body that holds sway over their lives. This lack of representation makes it easier for their self-government to be undermined, as we see today. That must change. We will need to revisit serious legislation to finally fix this injustice and secure for D.C. residents the same democratic rights every other American enjoys.

The Bigger Picture

This fight is not about partisan politics. It is about whether America will live up to its founding ideals of self-rule and accountability. Every voter, regardless of party, should ask: if the capital of our democracy can be militarized without the consent of the people, what stops it from happening in other cities across America?

A Call to Action

When I ran for president, my wife told me I was going to make history. I told her making history didn’t matter to me — what mattered to me then and what matters to me now is making a difference. I'm not in office yet so I have no legal authority to act. But, I am still a citizen of the United States, a veteran of the United States Air Force, someone who has taken the oath of office, many times since 1973. That oath has no expiration date. Today, that difference is about ensuring the residents of D.C. — and every American city — are protected from unchecked federal overreach.

I urge every reader to share this bill with your representatives. Demand that Congress act now. We can’t wait until the mid-terms. Demand that they defend democracy where it matters most — in the heart of our capital — because FBI and DEA agents patrolling the streets of our nation's capital does not demonstrate democracy. Quite the contrary, it clearly demonstrates autocracy.

Davenport is a candidate for U.S. Congress, NC-06.
The Return of Loyalty Tests and the Decline of American Democracy

Faded American flag

The Return of Loyalty Tests and the Decline of American Democracy

Remember when loyalty oaths were used to ferret out and punish people suspected of being Communists? They were a potent and terrifying tool, designed to produce conformity and compliance at the height of the late 1940s, early 1950s Red Scare.

Today, they are back, but in more subtle, if no less coercive, forms. The Trump Administration is using them in hiring and retaining federal employees, in dispensing federal grants, and in passing out perks.

Keep ReadingShow less