Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Podcast: America’s political orphans

Podcast: America’s political orphans
Getty Images

Former Congressman Scott Klug was startled earlier this year when a couple cornered him in the cereal aisle of a local grocery store. The same thing happened earlier that week in the line of a movie theater. The first Kevin McCarthy fiasco was driving Wisconsin voters to despair.

The first couple were Democrats. The theater stalker, a Republican. Their questions were phrased with the same sense of exasperation.


“Who elected these people? The Republicans are running around the country trying to ban middle school books and the Democrats are trying to take the stove out of my kitchen,” he told us they asked him.

Those conversations prompted the one-time tv reporter to return to both his journalism roots, and more importantly his political roots.

In 1990 he ran as a moderate Republican championing term limits and in a shocker defeated a 32-year incumbent Democrat incumbent. During his eight years in Congress, he racked up the third most independent voting record in Wisconsin politics in the last 50 years.

True to his term limit pledge he walked away.

In late September he launched a podcast to shine a spotlight on the oft ignored political center. “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans” is storytelling highlighting what he describes as seventy-one million bewildered, frustrated voters.

“The podcast was born,” Klug recently told Madison Magazine, “out of the sentiment that a wide swath of the American public, myself included, can’t figure out how in the hell we got to this place. And more importantly, is there a way for us out of it.”

His early episodes have received rave reviews across the political spectrum. “Hell of a lot of fun; great storytelling”, wrote former Buffalo area Republican Congressman Jack Quinn. “A breath of fresh air in an all too toxic world”, wrote California Democratic Pollster Paul Maslin. “Here’s a nice break from all that” . To read more about the background of the stories and the show’s creators, please visit www.LostMiddle.com.

Understand this is not a political talk show. These are long format journalism pieces that are more like a 60 Minutes, or a 20/20 episode.

“With the new Kevin McCarthy train wreck, I think your readers will be intrigued by Kevin McCarthy’s own thoughts”, Klug said. “We interviewed him in our first episode. Oh, not that Kevin McCarthy,” he said with a laugh.

“Kevin McCarthy is a county board member and radio DJ we interviewed in our first episode on the politics in Rockford, Illinois, a little noticed bellwether that has voted for the winning Presidential candidate in seven of the last eight elections.”

Today we are making the first story available to our readers. We will offer new episodes in the coming weeks.

Here is a brief description of the first episode

Episode One: America’s 71 bewildered Political Orphans.

44% of voters describe themselves as centrists, but why is nobody listening to them? But we do, finding a ton of them in Rockford, Illinois a blue collar city that has voted for the winning President in 7 of the last 8 elections. Focus group guru Frank Luntz discusses what he calls common sense votes. And finally we tell you about a bi-partisan speaker election (what a concept, huh?) in Columbus, Ohio.

Take a listen.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

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.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less