Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Another Survey Highlights Public’s Desire for a Government Makeover

Add another poll to the growing evidence that more and more Americans are dissatisfied with the federal government and want the political system revamped.

The pessimism has gotten so strong that one in eight voters is ready to start from scratch.


The survey released last week — by the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research — found 54 percent think that major changes are needed to the U.S. system of government. Another 32 percent said either minor or no changes are needed.

And a remarkable 12 percent of those surveyed, including 22 percent of independents, said we need to dump the current system and come up with an altogether different system.

Other findings in the survey of 1,003 people include:

  • 70 percent say people like them have too little power and influence in Washington.
  • More than 70 percent say the government should have a lot of responsibility for issues such as terrorism, economic growth and crime, but few believe it handles such issues very well.
  • Only 13 percent say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right always or most of the time.

"The poll reveals that voters do not trust government to follow through, and it's not meeting their expectations. This lack of trust and lack of performance relates to larger concerns about the state of American democracy," said William Howell of the Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy.

"There's a real opening here for political candidates to address people's desire for systemic change."

Democrats were more likely than Republicans to believe major changes are needed to the government. They also had more critical views of government performance than their GOP counterparts, and more think that people like them have too little power and influence compared to Republicans.

A Gallup poll conducted in January found that Americans' trust in the federal government's ability to handle problems had fallen to the lowest point in almost 20 years.


Read More

Hand placing VOTE sticker on shirt

Hand placing VOTE sticker on shirt

Photo provided

The Latino Vote Keeps Changing. Why Do We Keep Calling It a Realignment?

After the 2024 presidential election, the headlines suggested that Latino voters were moving toward the Republican Party. Donald Trump’s gains were interpreted as evidence of a possible political realignment, particularly among working-class Latino voters and younger men.

Two years later, the story has reversed. Latino voters, we are told, are returning to the Democrats.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller

President Donald Trump departs a roundtable discussion on cybercrime with White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller (R) in the East Room of the White House on October 21, 2026, in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Trump’s Elevation of Stephen Miller Proves His Promise to Work With Democrats Is a Farce

In the immediate aftermath of Tuesday’s sweeping midterm election losses, a chastened President Donald Trump struck an unusually conciliatory tone, signaling a willingness to work with Democrats. But the spirit of bipartisanship proved fleeting.

By forcing out Susie Wiles and elevating Stephen Miller to White House Chief of Staff, Trump has delivered a definitive, defiant message to the American electorate: the era of uncompromising grievance and division isn't over—it is being supercharged.

Keep ReadingShow less
economics graph on blackboard

economics graph on blackboard

Getty Images

What Post-1971 Supply-side Economics Has Done to Veterans

Post-1971 supply-side economics—often referred to as "trickle-down economics" or "Reaganomics” fundamentally transformed the relationship between the federal government and military veterans. The year 1971 marked the end of the Bretton Woods system, the closing of the gold window, and a pivot toward neoliberal economic frameworks that prioritized deregulation, sweeping tax cuts, and aggressive federal deficit reduction via domestic spending cuts.

For veterans, who had previously benefited from the expansive, New Deal-style social investments of the original G.I. Bill, this macroeconomic paradigm shift led to four distinct structural consequences:

Keep ReadingShow less
Bank sign
The bank of ornate classical columns and facade
Photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash

A Bank Account Should Not Come with a Political Litmus Test

The ongoing appetite for "debanking"—pressuring financial institutions to cut off customers because of who they are, what they believe, or with whom they associate—should concern everyone. Why? Because in the end, anyone can become an easy target.

One pressure point has been protests against private banks whose customers are companies who build or operate immigration detention facilities under contracts with the Trump administration. The Boston area saw such protests earlier this year, and there have been others.

Keep ReadingShow less