Critics of Representative Ocasio-Cortez from the left would accuse her of trying to pander to centrist voices as she prepares for a run at the presidency in 2028. Perhaps there’s some truth to that, but I don’t see declaring “Woke 1.0” crazy as a centrist point of view, but rather as a responsible, mature, and rational one. You see, the woke movement was misguided to begin with. What was supposed to start out as an awakening to the struggles of people of color in the United States turned into a catch-all phrase for perceived marginalized communities of all shapes and sizes. Like anything else, it became bastardized and lost its initial value as a potential turning point for its original intended group.

Today, in response to Trump’s more sinister second term as president, we have seen a resurgence of far-left populist backlash, but wokeism is no longer in vogue. Quite the contrary, in fact. Log into social media today, and you will find left-leaning pages littered with comments calling for the usual progressive talking points. People speak of wanting to end corruption in Washington by limiting the ability of members of Congress to make stock trades while in office. Others call for higher taxes on the one percent or for some type of universal or single-payer health care system (think Medicare for All). These talking points carry little controversy, especially in the current political climate, where the ultra-wealthy and powerful seem to care very little about the growing wealth gap between themselves and the ever-shrinking middle class.

What I am starting to find inexcusable are some of the other talking points coming out of the left that are starting to border on hate speech. In particular, the tone of anti-Israel criticism is starting to teeter on that fine line between expressing support for Palestinians and expressing actual hateful comments about Israel and the Jewish people who live there. In fact, in recent weeks, I have seen what I perceive to be left-leaning commenters make comments such as “this person looks Jewish,” or “oh look, another Jew,” or something to that regard when engaging in political discussions. It’s one thing to express disapproval with how the government of Israel is handling its ongoing attacks on Gaza, but it’s a whole other thing to be openly antisemitic. It was a slow crawl to get to this point. I have seen people say they are anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. Those distinctions seem to be disappearing by the day, and this is leaking into our domestic politics.

This primary season has seen the rise of Democratic Socialists of America candidates—or candidates endorsed by the DSA, such as Abdul El-Sayed—winning party nominations over more centrist Democrats. These DSA candidates tend to run on the less shocking messages of free health care, a fair tax system, and an end to corruption in government. However, some of these opinion leaders are going a step further, making comments about how Israel has no right to exist. A country filled with the descendants of Holocaust victims should not be spoken about in terms of extinction. No, I don’t always agree with how the government of Israel handles its domestic and foreign affairs, but I understand why it is important for Israelis to feel as though they are safe on a day-to-day basis.

When our current president was rising to prominence in American politics during 2015 and 2016, he was criticized by mainstream media and many average Americans for making disparaging, hateful, and even racist comments about Latinos, Muslims, and other minority groups. It was these comments, however, that springboarded him ahead of other GOP candidates in the Republican primaries. Will the Democrats allow their candidates to sink to similar lows of energizing a base with hateful rhetoric?

If we want to rid all politics of hateful, extreme, and damaging rhetoric and policies, it will be up to both parties to condemn such behavior and then act on those condemnations by holding those candidates or officeholders accountable for their actions.

Political progress is a good and necessary step toward building a strong, successful, and safe society for all Americans, but that progress can’t come at the sacrifice of ethical behavior and the preservation of safeguards for the people with whom we disagree. Fair taxes and health care for all might be goals for progressives, but they can’t abandon their principles to achieve those goals. Otherwise, we will find that the pendulum has swung just as far left as it did right, and the ultimate goal of a sustainable political and economic system that works for everyone will be as far away tomorrow as it was yesterday.

The surgery worked. I lost around 90 pounds over the course of six months, and I was once again able to work out as vigorously and frequently as I wished. In the years since, however, my life has changed, and my free time has become limited. I am a full-time teacher, and I coach three sports, so I work from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. most days during the school year. I have had to become more creative in balancing work, my relationships, and my personal health. Then, one day in the fall of 2024, my wife and I decided to give pickleball a try. We had heard a lot about it but had avoided it because we both come from a tennis background.

My relationship with pickleball has evolved considerably since we first tried it nearly two years ago. At first, we attended open play sessions together at the local community center. I enjoyed the exercise, the game itself was fun, and the other players were warm and welcoming. I noticed, however, that some people took it very seriously. They spent significant amounts of money on equipment, maintained many of their friendships through the sport, and devoted more time to it than I could imagine. I told myself I would never reach that point.

Fast forward to this summer, and I am, for all intents and purposes, the volunteer recreation director at the Deering Oaks pickleball courts. On most days that end in "Y," I am the first to arrive and the last to leave. I collect abandoned balls and redistribute them the next day. I welcome new players, keep games moving throughout the morning, provide a lawn chair for tired players, and have even started organizing evening groups for those who can’t make it in the morning. I have become a pickleball person, and it has changed my life for the better. I am in better shape than I have been in years, and my reflexes are sharper than they have been at any point in my adult life.

As important as the physical benefits of pickleball are, the social benefits may be even more important. The game humbles you. Beyond that, it forces you to work together with people from nearly every walk of life. I play with men, women, teenagers, senior citizens, moms and dads, brothers and sisters, people of different religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations, gender identities, and political leanings. None of it matters. The only things that matter on a pickleball court are following the rules and working with your randomly assigned partner to try to win the game.

I’m telling you all of this because I want my readers to understand how important pickleball is to the people who play it. Maine is the oldest state in the nation by median age. For people over the age of 65, the physical benefits of pickleball almost go without saying. If the game is beneficial to me as a 40-year-old, you can only imagine how valuable it is to one of the spry 80-year-olds I play with each week. More importantly, from my perspective, pickleball gets senior citizens out of the house and into the community in a safe, welcoming, and supportive environment.

I have been fortunate to get to know dozens of retired friends ranging in age from their early 60s to 91. I have always gotten along well with the older members of my community, but pickleball has taken those relationships to another level. When you’re on the court with a 78-year-old transplant from Massachusetts who is slamming forehand volleys past your weaker backhand, it’s much easier to share an off-color joke than it would be if you were sitting next to that person at a public supper.

Reports from within the Midcoast community reveal an issue that has emerged not only there but across the country as the sport continues to grow. Pickleball is loud. Pickleball attracts large crowds. Pickleball often displaces tennis players as courts are converted to meet the demands of its growing popularity. As a result, pickleball can be viewed as a nuisance—something that needs to go away.

Truth be told, pickleball isn't going anywhere, and it shouldn't. Every community has to make difficult decisions about competing interests. Residents deserve peace and quiet, and those concerns should be taken seriously, but so should the interests of the hundreds of people whose physical health, mental health, and social lives have been transformed by this sport. 

When a community decides whether to preserve a place where older adults exercise, build friendships, fight loneliness, and remain active, it isn't simply deciding where to put a few painted lines on a court. It's deciding what kind of community it wants to be. As Maine continues to age, we shouldn't be looking for reasons to make pickleball disappear. We should be looking for ways to make it work, because for those who play it, pickleball is more than a game, it’s a place to belong.

When Coach Cooper contacted me that summer to invite me to join his coaching staff, I was elated. What an opportunity. One of the most successful high school football coaches in Maine history had invited me—a nobody—to help coach his team. I had no idea what I was getting myself into. Teaching at a new school came with its challenges, but I was a seasoned educator. I could handle whatever the student body at Bonny Eagle High School threw at me.

The football team, however, humbled me. I was a fish out of water. I couldn’t coast through that season of football coaching, even as the fifth wheel on the coaching staff. My biggest takeaway from coaching with Kevin Cooper was the extraordinarily high level of accountability he expected from every single person associated with his team. Whether it was the players, coaches, managers, or the athletic director, he made sure everyone knew exactly what was expected of them. If they failed to meet those expectations, there was no shame—just disappointment, and eventually, disinterest. If you weren’t all in, you were all out. From that point on, I understood what it took to be great at whatever you were trying to do.

High accountability is nothing to avoid. True, sustained success cannot be achieved without it.

Fast forward to 2026, and I look around at how our federal government is functioning, and I fail to see that same level of accountability. When Donald Trump was first elected in November 2016, it was largely because he connected with working-class voters across the country. Whether you agreed with his message or not, it was effective, and he earned his victory.

By 2020, Trump’s policies, behavior, and messaging were failing him. As such, he was defeated by Joe Biden, losing the popular vote by more than 7 million votes and the Electoral College by 74 electoral votes. He suffered a clear and decisive defeat. When someone loses in such a manner, the healthy response is to reflect on one’s shortcomings and, if one wishes to continue fighting in the future, adjust one’s strategy to appeal to the broader electorate.

Donald Trump did the opposite. He and his closest allies created what came to be known as “The Big Lie,” the false claim that the 2020 election had been stolen from him. We all saw the immediate consequences of that lie when Trump’s most ardent supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, causing extensive property damage and engaging in violence that resulted in multiple deaths and injuries.

The Big Lie should have ended there. The Senate should have voted to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial, and that should have been the last we heard from him. Instead, Senator Mitch McConnell wavered, and Trump escaped political accountability as he quietly retreated from Washington later that month.

Four years later, the true consequences of the Big Lie became even more apparent during Donald Trump’s third presidential campaign. He pivoted his message during the summer of 2024, focusing on the economy, transgender issues, and illegal immigration. His messaging resonated with many Americans who were still recovering from the economic and social effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, incumbent President Joe Biden’s public appearances fueled growing concerns about his age and fitness for office. The Democratic primary process had already concluded, and by the time Biden withdrew from the race on July 21, it was too late to conduct a traditional nomination contest. Vice President Kamala Harris ultimately became the Democratic nominee. Trump returned to the White House with a comfortable electoral victory.

Since then, Trump has surrounded himself with sycophants who do almost nothing to challenge his habitual dishonesty. With his newfound power and minimal interference from Congress, the consequences of the Big Lie are becoming increasingly serious. The president has reportedly used acceptance of the Big Lie as a litmus test for nominees to judicial and Cabinet positions.

It has become a popular internet meme for Democratic congressmen to ask Trump nominees a simple question: Who won the 2020 presidential election? Few are willing to answer directly. Instead, they typically respond that “Joe Biden was certified by Congress as receiving the most electoral votes.” They cannot simply say that Joe Biden won the election because doing so would be viewed as an act of disloyalty to Trump.

Unfortunately for the American public, the Senate—including our own Susan Collins—has continued to confirm many of these nominees despite their unwillingness to acknowledge the truth about the 2020 election. The result, in my view, is a Cabinet that is rife with incompetence. I would point to examples such as the administration’s handling of the conflict with Iran under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the recent Cyclospora outbreak, which I believe reflects Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s inadequate stewardship of public health agencies.

In sum, our federal government is a mess, and it is being run by a cadre of Trump loyalists who have shown little integrity and even less interest in personal accountability. The most severe consequences of allowing these Big Liars to run our government may not be felt for decades. Thousands of our government’s best and brightest employees have already left the federal bureaucracy, and there is no telling when the agencies most affected by those losses will recover the level of performance for which organizations such as the Department of Defense and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had long been known.

This fall, the nation will have its first opportunity in two years to decide who will be responsible for holding the Trump administration accountable when voters elect a new Congress. If the Big Liars lose, perhaps the truth about why they are failing will finally catch up with them.

Instead, we find ourselves embroiled in an entanglement of competing, polarized political movements that are pulling our country apart at the seams. Though it may feel like our situation is hopeless and that the great American experiment is failing—or has already failed—it might be useful to look back at previous milestone anniversaries to realign our goals and values.

1826

Leading up to the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had fallen gravely ill. As such, he was unable to attend the festivities in Washington, D.C. Instead, he penned a letter to Robert C. Weightman, the mayor of the capital. In it, he expressed pride that the country continued to prosper and succeed under its novel system of self-government, believing that he and the other advocates of independence from Great Britain had made the right decision. It was his hope that this relatively short-lived experiment would serve as a “signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.”

Jefferson hoped that the United States could serve as a template for other countries seeking freedom. During their own bicentennial celebration in 1989, the French government credited the United States with demonstrating how self-government could be achieved.

1876

One hundred years into our experiment, the country was still trying to recover from a violent and traumatic Civil War. Though our Declaration of Independence established that all men were created equal, it was not until Congress and the states ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that the nation truly attempted to establish freedom for all.

However, freeing formerly enslaved people and protecting their rights in a region that had long been politically dominated by their former enslavers proved to be an arduous and costly task. By 1876, Americans in both the North and the South had grown weary of the Reconstruction period that followed the Civil War. Less than a year after the nation celebrated its 100th birthday, it turned its back on the very men and women it had promised to free just a decade earlier.

Guaranteeing rights for all people, especially those in the minority, is an extraordinarily important tenet of a free nation. Yet only ten years after making that promise, we broke it. Following the controversial election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, Southern Democrats threatened renewed rebellion. Rather than risk another conflict, an unwritten agreement removed federal military oversight from the South, effectively ending Reconstruction. It would take another century before African Americans in much of the country enjoyed the freedoms they had long been promised.

1976

Skip forward another hundred years, and we find a nation once again recovering from political and economic turmoil. Still carrying the burden of having served as vice president under a president who resigned in 1974, Gerald Ford chose to use the country’s 200th birthday to celebrate an integral group of people: new Americans.

On July 5, 1976, Ford delivered a speech at a naturalization ceremony at Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia home. It was Jefferson’s vision of a growing nation that provided the blueprint for American greatness, but it was the labor, creativity, and innovation of immigrants that helped bring that vision to life. We are a nation of immigrants, and Ford recognized that. He understood that the United States was both a beacon of hope and an invitation for people from anywhere in the world to build something greater for themselves if they embraced that opportunity.

2026

Today, our country faces a level of division unlike any I have witnessed, and what is particularly alarming to me is the willingness of the political extremes on both the left and the right to abandon elements of the foundation upon which our country was built.

Of course, we have seen our basic rights come under threat from the Trump administration through its repeated attacks on the free press, its unconstitutional use of law enforcement during arbitrary Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, and its attempts to undermine free elections through the absurdly titled SAVE Act. But the response from parts of the far left is becoming equally troubling. Little by little, some Democratic Socialists are abandoning the American system in favor of ideas that may appear appealing on the surface but that often disregard the principles of economic freedom and the rule of law.

We must move forward from this difficult period carefully. Let us remember Jefferson’s final wish that we should “let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”

Through thick and thin, our focus as Americans should always return to the principles that gave a fledgling nation its strength in the first place. It is our basic freedoms that make us great, and if we are ever tempted to stray from that truth, only then will we have truly lost the plot of the great American experiment.

If these allegations ultimately end Platner’s campaign—and I suspect they will—the obvious question becomes who should replace him. One thing, however, should be abundantly clear: Platner’s downfall should not become Susan Collins’s ticket back to Washington.

Collins has spent decades cultivating an image as Maine’s indispensable senator. To her credit, as chair (for now) of the Senate Appropriations Committee, she possesses enormous influence over how federal dollars are distributed, allowing her to steer funding toward projects across our state. Her supporters argue that replacing her would mean sacrificing that influence.

I’m not convinced. If Collins loses in November, Maine will not suddenly stop receiving federal funding. Bridges will still be repaired. Harbors will still be dredged. Emergency projects will still receive attention. Would that breakwater in Eastport really have gone unrepaired indefinitely without Susan Collins? I doubt it. As a Maine voter, I’m willing to test that theory because I believe the costs of keeping Collins now outweigh the benefits of her seniority. That wasn’t always my opinion.

I grew up as a Susan Collins supporter. Even after other Republican politicians—beginning with Paul LePage—lost my support, I continued to defend Collins. At one point, I even described myself as a “Susan Collins Republican” on my Facebook profile. Everything changed with Brett Kavanaugh.

When Collins cast the deciding vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, she abandoned the political identity she had spent years constructing. She had repeatedly promised Maine voters that she would protect abortion rights. Yet she chose to confirm a nominee who refused to clearly affirm Roe v. Wade as settled law. If Collins truly believed protecting Roe was a priority, that alone should have been disqualifying.

Then there was the second issue—one that feels especially relevant this week. Kavanaugh had himself been accused of sexual assault. Like Platner, he denied the allegation. Collins nevertheless voted to confirm him, and within four years, Kavanaugh joined the majority that overturned Roe v. Wade. Without Collins’s vote, that majority almost certainly would not have existed. That confirmation vote permanently changed the direction of the Supreme Court, and I have never viewed Collins the same way since.

Assuming Democrats now need a new nominee, who makes the most sense? Rather than speculate wildly, it’s worth looking at the candidates who political observers and prediction markets believe are the most likely replacements.

The current favorite on prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket is Troy Jackson, the former Maine Senate president from Allagash. From a purely political standpoint, Jackson makes the most sense. He is ideologically closest to Platner, campaigned alongside him from the beginning, and has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to win votes in conservative territory.

That last point shouldn’t be overlooked. Jackson comes from Allagash, a community that strongly supported Donald Trump in 2024. Trump carried Aroostook County by the largest margin of any county in Maine, yet Jackson still managed to win his most recent race there by roughly five percentage points. Few Democratic politicians can point to that kind of crossover appeal.

The obvious concern involves Jackson’s own reputation. Right-wing outlet The Maine Wire has alleged that Jackson threw a water bottle at a woman during a Democratic caucus after becoming frustrated during a political disagreement. I could not independently verify that allegation through reliable reporting, but if Democrats are searching for a candidate who represents a clean break from Platner, even unverified accusations deserve scrutiny.

Another possibility is former Maine CDC Director Nirav Shah. Unlike Jackson, Shah has never held elected office. On the other hand, he may represent exactly the kind of calm, competent leadership Democrats are looking to project after weeks of turmoil. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Shah became one of the most trusted public officials in Maine, providing a measured voice during an extraordinarily uncertain time. Conservatives continue to criticize his handling of the pandemic, but there is little doubt that he built substantial goodwill among many Maine voters. His greatest weakness is obvious: Susan Collins would almost certainly portray him as someone with no electoral experience and no legislative record.

The third possibility is Secretary of State Shenna Bellows. Bellows may represent the sharpest contrast with Platner. Like Jackson, she has repeatedly shown an ability to win in politically competitive territory. Although Kennebec County voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2024, Bellows won her state Senate races there by comfortable double-digit margins. She is experienced, competent, scandal-free, and could offer Democrats an opportunity to reset their campaign with a candidate who projects stability.

There are drawbacks, however. Bellows is closely associated with Governor Janet Mills, whose popularity has declined over time, and she recently finished behind both Jackson and Shah in the June gubernatorial primary. Replacing Platner with Bellows feels somewhat reminiscent of Democrats replacing Joe Biden with Kamala Harris in 2024. On paper, the move makes organizational sense. Whether it is the strongest possible strategy for defeating a five-term incumbent senator is another question entirely.

Ultimately, the decision matters less than what comes afterward. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will need unified support from the party. Democrats cannot afford a repeat of 2024, when many disillusioned voters stayed home because they were dissatisfied with Kamala Harris as the nominee. Internal divisions may be understandable, but they are rarely politically productive.

For those of us who believe Susan Collins’s time in the Senate has come to an end, this race remains winnable. Platner’s collapse should not be to the benefit of Collins. It should become the beginning of a serious conversation about who is best positioned to defeat her in November.

Today is different. I had an outline ready to go (the topic of which you will have to read about another day), but what I have witnessed over the last few weeks in our country has inspired me to let you all know just how wonderful the world around us truly is.

It’s easy to feel like the United States is in a bit of a rut these days. We just celebrated our president’s birthday by holding a violent mixed martial arts fight on the White House lawn. Down the street from that event, the reflecting pool at the National Mall is deteriorating at an alarming rate. Both of these realities serve as glaring examples of the misguided and self-serving approach our president and his appointed officials have taken to running our nation.

The MMA fight was put on as a show of masculinity and strength, but at the end of the day, it was an embarrassment and a financial pitfall for Dana White, the president and CEO of the UFC, who was ultimately responsible for the cost of an event that lost roughly $30 million. The president got to make a point, and someone else had to pay for it.

At the reflecting pool, the president insisted that previous administrations had neglected it, allowing it to become filthy and take on an undesirable color. Naturally, he hired a friend through one of his administration’s famous “no-bid” contracts and had the bottom of the reflecting pool painted a slightly darker “American Flag Blue.” As most of you probably already know, the results have been fairly catastrophic, with the pool growing an outlandish amount of algae in a short amount of time and haphazard attempts to control the algae have caused the paint to peel. The entire job will need to be done again, probably at a higher cost, and the bill will be paid by taxpayers. The president made a poor decision through stunning incompetence, and someone else will have to pay for it.

These events have held a mirror up to our current administration, and what it sees cannot be pleasing to the eye. Fortunately for the rest of us, we do not have to look in that mirror, especially if you have never cast a vote for that man. Instead, we can look in a different mirror. This one shows a much better reflection.

For the past few weeks, and for several weeks ahead, the United States has been invaded by millions of foreign visitors who have settled all across our great country. They are here for the FIFA World Cup. They arrived to support their own national teams in games they largely care about much more than we do, but they are here for more than soccer. Coverage of their visits to Boston, Kansas City, Houston, and Seattle has revealed a reality that no negative media coverage, either domestic or international, can spin: the world still loves America.

Our country still has plenty for the world to love. Almost everyone who has spoken about our hosting of the World Cup has been overwhelmingly complimentary of our enormous, beautiful, and comfortable stadiums, and they cannot stop raving about things that we take for granted. Whether it is English fans expressing awe at a Buc-ee’s convenience store they describe as “a gas station mixed with Disney World wrapped in a gift shop,” a Japanese fan left in disbelief that chips and salsa are served at Tex-Mex restaurants before an order is placed, or Croatian fans getting so full on good Texas barbecue that it causes them to lose a night of sleep, the world has been reminded why it fell in love with America in the first place. We live life to the fullest, and no one can tell us not to.

The reflection I see when the World Cup mirror is held up to our country is that of a people—not a government—who have received the rest of the world with open arms. There is so much going on, almost all of it positive, that it cannot be spun in a negative way to make us look bad. There is simply too much joy and happiness in the United States at the moment to suggest otherwise.

Lastly, Americans all around the country are getting to see just how great people from around the world are. These visitors are coming for one or two games, which means many are here for several weeks. Nothing has warmed my heart more than seeing reports about the Tartan Army in Boston. This friendly mob of Scottish soccer fans has captured the hearts and minds of New Englanders in short order.

Elsewhere, FIFA Fan Fests have brought American fans together with soccer supporters from Argentina, Nigeria, Brazil, Iraq, Japan, and many other countries. At a time when so many people in government are expressing isolationist perspectives, we are getting firsthand exposure to warm and welcoming people from 48 countries across every inhabited continent.

As easy as it is to fall into a cycle of doom fueled by a media industry that profits from our misery, the World Cup is an extended six-week reminder that the world still loves our country and all it has to offer—and that we still love the rest of the world. One can only hope that this feeling extends beyond the close of the tournament in July.

His actual chances of winning his U.S. Senate race against incumbent Susan Collins are less clear. He is plagued by a series of scandals related to his behavior before declaring his candidacy for public office. Either way, he remains popular with a sizable base of Democratic and independent voters who seem fed up with establishment politicians.

So what is it about Platner’s message that resonates so strongly with this disaffected constituency? If you examine his platform, it revolves around a few simple ideas. Several are consistent with what almost any candidate would focus on: affordability, improving health care, and supporting small businesses. Where he differs from his opponents, however, is in his attitude toward—and opposition to—the billionaire class in the United States.

Platner’s campaign website mentions billionaires four times on its home page and six times on its platform page. He has clearly set his sights on reducing the influence of billionaires and ensuring that they pay what he considers their fair share in taxes. Does he have a point?

I personally have a lot of thoughts on billionaires. First and foremost, I want to firmly establish that I do, in fact, believe that billionaires, adjusted for inflation, should exist in a healthy capitalist system. If you have read my column over the last few years, you know that I am a believer in a strong market economy, and I believe there is a place for the ultra-wealthy in a robust economy.

From time to time, I have read arguments that there is no place for billionaires in a civil and fair society and that a billionaire cannot exist without exploiting someone along the way. If that were true, how did Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Taylor Swift, George Lucas, or Steven Spielberg become billionaires? Who did they exploit? The fans of their sports, music, or movies? No, they did not exploit anyone. Quite the opposite, actually—they have enriched our lives in many ways.

The list of “noble” billionaires is not limited to the entertainment world. It can be argued that our lives have become easier, more affordable, and more efficient because of the efforts of industrial giants whose ambition led to both incredible wealth and remarkable accomplishments. Without the efforts of Bill Gates, Microsoft might not have helped bring computers into the mainstream. Without Henry Ford, automobiles would not have been produced for the masses. Without Andrew Carnegie, steel would not have been produced as cheaply, slowing the growth of railroads and skyscrapers.

Of course, these men have their critics, but their efforts improved our lives and strengthened the industrial might of the United States.

Our problems with wealth inequality today stem less from billionaires themselves and more from what we, the people of the United States, have allowed them to do. Billionaires used to be more fun when the government was working to regulate them. Today it seems politicians would rather hand them the keys to the government rather than use its functions to reign in their influence, let alone their ability to generate unimaginable wealth.

Billionaires face very little accountability and, as such, have little incentive to do anything other than line their own pockets. Why is this? We can blame both the courts and ourselves. By electing politicians who refuse to hold the ultra-wealthy accountable, we perpetuate a political system that favors corporations and the top one percent.

And why would these politicians do anything differently? In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court opened Pandora’s box. The result was a flood of political spending by corporations, wealthy individuals, and Super PACs. One manifestation of this change was Elon Musk’s estimated $250 million to $290 million in spending to support Donald Trump and other Republican candidates in 2024. While this is an extreme example of the consequences of that court decision, it highlights the impact the ruling has had on our political culture.

According to one study from the University of Cincinnati, corporations can realize returns of up to 700% on every dollar spent on political donations. If that is the case, why wouldn’t they take advantage of this political reality? In other words, it is not difficult for the rich to get richer.

So when a candidate like Graham Platner complains that the number of billionaires in the United States has grown from fewer than 80 in 1990 to more than 1,000 today, perhaps we should not question whether his claim is legitimate—it is. Nor should we direct our anger solely at billionaires themselves. Instead, we should look more closely at why that number has grown at such a remarkable rate.

Were it not for the policies and politicians that allowed this to happen, perhaps we would not have to worry about people like Graham Platner running for the U.S. Senate against Susan Collins. If Susan Collins and politicians like her had done a little more to rein in the power of the ultra-wealthy over the last few decades, Platner would have far less ground on which to stand.

As it is, Mainers—and many Americans around the country—are fed up. The result is a candidate on the rise who may not resemble the type of candidate our state traditionally sends to Washington.

We do have a billionaire problem, but it is not necessarily the fault of the billionaires themselves. The establishment has only itself to blame. If the political establishment on both sides of the aisle wishes to remain in power, it must do more to address wealth inequality. If it does not, there will be more Graham Platners in the future to ruffle their feathers.

Battle for the Blaine House

Last August, I weighed in on the Republican and Democratic fields for the 2026 Maine gubernatorial election. For the Democrats, I painted a gloomy picture. They are hoping Governor Janet Mills will pass the baton to another member of her own party. However, who she potentially passes that baton to could have an enormous effect on the future of Maine’s economy and way of life. Maine leans blue, so statewide elections tend to favor Democrats. As such, their gubernatorial primary has an outsized impact, so we should take a careful look at how it is shaping up for June 9.

The Democratic Frontrunners

Though I haven’t seen any of his ads on my platforms, former Maine CDC Director Nirav Shah has a clear, though not comfortable, lead in recent polls. A Pan Atlantic Research poll released on May 20 had Shah leading his closest competitor, Angus King III, by five points, 29% to 24%, with Troy Jackson, Shenna Bellows, and Hannah Pingree all hovering around 10% support.

Former Director Shah is an intriguing option for Maine Democrats. He had not entered the race as of last August, so I had no opinion of him then, but he fits the bill for what I would personally look for in a candidate from the Maine Democratic Party. He checks a lot of boxes from what I can tell. Whether you approved of the COVID-19 pandemic guidelines or not, Director Shah was a solid mooring in a stormy sea. He was a source of comfort and stability for Mainers at a time when that was exactly what we needed. He is careful and intelligent, and after reviewing his policy positions, I can say that I would feel comfortable with his approach to promoting healthy commerce in the state.

My biggest concern with the Democratic field before Shah joined was that no candidate stood out as someone willing to challenge their own party or as someone with enough experience in state government to lead Maine in a responsible and sensible manner. For me, the latter was my concern with former Director Shah’s closest competitor, Angus King III. Though I believe King III is a competent and intelligent candidate for Maine’s highest office, his lack of experience is a red flag for someone who may one day be charged with crisis management in an environment where a crisis is more likely than not to occur. Again, I have nothing against King III after reviewing his policy positions, but his lack of political experience concerns me.

The Republican at the Top

On the Republican side, last August I identified Bobby Charles as the likely frontrunner, and that prediction appears to have been correct. In the same Pan Atlantic poll, Charles leads his closest competitor, entrepreneur Jonathan Bush, by a healthy margin of 16 points.

If you have followed my column over the last few years, it should not be difficult to understand why I am not a fan of Bobby Charles. He has, in my view, a strained relationship with the truth, attacks immigrants to score cheap political points, and reminds me of the type of politician who would attempt to emulate Paul LePage—or, in my opinion, even worse, Donald Trump—if he ever gained control of the Blaine House. I believe this modern era of bombastic conservative rhetoric is something that needs to be rooted out of our politics at the local, state, and national levels, and electing Bobby Charles would do little to solve that problem.

Last August, I made no mention of Jonathan Bush because he had not officially entered the race, but I am interested in hearing more from him. To a certain degree, I think he has tried to appeal to the broader Republican base by taking shots at Maine Democrats regarding alleged corruption and fraud. However, he also appears to have a substantive plan to move Maine’s economy forward while addressing some of the state’s most pressing needs, including housing, education, energy costs, and improving the business climate.

Maine’s 2nd Congressional District

For our Democratic and unenrolled readers in Waldo County and beyond, I am very intrigued by the District 2 primary battle between former Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap and State Senator Joe Baldacci. The Pan Atlantic poll has Baldacci leading Dunlap by 20 points, but that poll surveyed only 170 likely voters, which does not meet the threshold for a statistically reliable sample. Furthermore, internal polling from the Dunlap campaign, conducted by an outside firm, had Dunlap leading Baldacci by seven points in March, so I am not particularly confident in any of the available polling.

This matchup is especially intriguing because it pits one of Maine’s most beloved political figures of the past 30 years against a candidate with one of Maine’s most recognizable political names. Former Secretary of State Dunlap served in that position for 14 nonconsecutive years. During his tenure, he transformed the office and even served as President of the National Association of Secretaries of State from 2010 to 2011. His résumé speaks for itself.

On the other side, Senator Joe Baldacci has had his own lengthy political career, establishing a reputation outside the shadow of his brother, former Maine Governor John Baldacci. Senator Baldacci has served in public office on and off since 1996, when he was elected to the Bangor City Council. He most notably entered state-level politics when he won his first Maine State Senate seat in 2020.

This is not his first attempt at representing Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. He ran in 2016 before dropping out of the primary and endorsing eventual Democratic nominee Emily Cain, who later lost to Republican Bruce Poliquin.

Both candidates appear competent and viable, but it may not matter in the general election, as former Governor Paul LePage is currently polling comfortably ahead of both Dunlap and Baldacci in hypothetical general election matchups.

The Senate

As for the remaining primaries, Governor Janet Mills’ surprising departure from the Democratic Senate primary left the state with what appears to be a single major challenger to incumbent Susan Collins: Graham Platner, a man who likely needs no introduction.

With no serious primary challenge, the real fireworks surrounding this race may have to wait until November. It should make for an interesting summer as Collins and Platner jockey for support across the state.

No matter who you support, please get out and vote. Over the past few months, I have made a concerted effort to remind all of you how important your vote is. Now it is up to you to go out and use it. Elections have consequences, and if you sit them out, you have little ground to stand on when policies are enacted that are not to your liking.

After a topic emerges, I read articles, scroll through social media responses, and listen to elected officials and opinion leaders share their perspectives. Those on the left loved the protests because they represent a show of force and an unwillingness to back down in the face of what they perceive to be extreme, authoritarian policies on the part of the Trump administration. They call for “No Kings” because they do not want a leader who acts like a king. On the right, perspectives range from, “If we had a king, you wouldn’t be able to protest,” to, “Look at all these paid actors.”

One way or another, I do not believe the protests do much to change the hearts and minds of those who oppose one another. I think the “No Kings” protests, and peaceful protests in general, are fine and serve as a vehicle for collective action, but they do little to change minds, let alone policies. For example, protests over ICE’s targeted campaign in Minnesota did little to change tactics. It was the deaths of two protesters that ultimately led to change, not the protests themselves. In reality, it is very hard to change minds. The best way to see change in our systems is through voting and through policy changes enacted by the policymakers we elect. In other words, the rule of law is the best way to assure a strong civil society.

A few weeks ago, King Charles III paid a visit to the United States and delivered a notable speech. In his address to Congress, he offered a stark reminder about one of the most important aspects of American rule of law. In the most British way possible, a king reminded a country without one just how important the separation of powers is, proclaiming, “Our common ideals were not only crucial for liberty and equality, they are also the foundation of our shared prosperity. The Rule of Law: the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice.”

In a country where one side screams “No Kings” while the other denies that their leader is turning into one, an actual king is reminding us to do better.

At one point in our history, we could have easily found ourselves with an elected official who had dreams and aspirations for more power and who might have viewed the young United States of America as an opportunity to create a powerful global empire and an even stronger name for himself. Such opportunities have been seized upon in other countries. Napoleon Bonaparte took advantage of a flailing and corrupt French republic by placing himself in control of his country’s government before attempting to create an empire in Europe. In England, Oliver Cromwell established a military dictatorship in 1653 following the execution of King Charles I in 1649. Again, the United States could have suffered a similar fate had a charismatic and ambitious leader seized power during our early years as a fledgling country. Fortunately, no such figure emerged, and a strong national Constitution was written while just the right man for the job was elected president.

Our first president, George Washington, set important precedents during his time in office. Though our Constitution is strong, it can also be vague, and Washington performed the important task of establishing norms such as serving only two terms, addressing Congress with a State of the Union speech that encouraged collaboration and accountability, and appointing officials based on merit rather than favoritism. A lesser man could have seen the office as a vehicle for political gain rather than an important duty to serve and protect a young nation that desperately needed strong, honest leadership.

There is a reason King Charles III needed to remind the United States of the democratic principles that have made us such a strong republic and an example for much of the democratic world. We have slipped in regard to separation of powers, co-equal branches of government, and respect for the rule of law. In order to re-establish our stature in the free world, we must tread carefully moving forward. The first task will be to elect a Congress willing to re-establish its independence from the Executive Branch and to ensure that appointments to the Judicial Branch serve the law rather than the will and caprice of a wannabe autocrat. As a nation, we can take this first step this year. The subsequent steps will be easier if we take these first ones correctly. Take action with your vote.

Election after election, particularly in the state of Maine, voters are forced to choose between a Democrat and a Trump-backed MAGA candidate. Whether it was Paul LePage for governor in 2022, Austin Theriault for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District in 2024, or the likely Republican nominee for governor, Bobby Charles, moderate voters are often forced to hold their noses and cast ballots for candidates who may not closely represent their policy goals or personal values.

In 2016, the state of Maine took a significant step forward in addressing this issue. It became the first state in the country to pass a comprehensive ranked-choice voting law through a citizen initiative. This law was largely a response to Paul LePage’s gubernatorial victory in 2010, when he won with only 37.6% of the popular vote. While he soundly defeated Libby Mitchell, the Democratic nominee, he only narrowly edged out late-surging independent Eliot Cutler by two percentage points. Although in hindsight it was fortunate Eliot Cutler did not win, many Maine voters were unsettled by how easily a candidate could win without majority support in a three-way race.

While ranked-choice voting (RCV) has its critics, it is important to note that it is widely considered one of the most fair and effective systems for single-winner elections with more than two candidates. For example, in the 2018 election for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, Bruce Poliquin led in the first round with 46% of the vote to Jared Golden’s 45%. Prior to 2016, Poliquin would have been declared the winner. However, under RCV, the redistribution of votes showed that Golden had broader overall support. Voters who initially supported independent candidate Tiffany Bond largely ranked Golden as their next choice, and he ultimately won the runoff 50.6% to 49.4%. Although Republicans objected and Poliquin challenged the result in court, the process held, and the candidate with broader appeal prevailed.

Despite improving fairness in election outcomes, ranked-choice voting does little to address the issue of producing more politically moderate candidates. If 75–85% of Republicans align with Donald Trump and follow his endorsements, a MAGA candidate is still highly likely to win a primary. In Maine, Republicans make up roughly 30% of registered voters, while Democrats account for about 36%, leaving nearly a third of voters unenrolled and effectively waiting for the parties to decide their choices. Fortunately, as of 2024, Maine has adopted a semi-open primary system that allows unenrolled voters to choose which party’s primary to participate in.

With a semi-open primary system, Mainers have an opportunity to disrupt the extreme polarization that has shaped both state and national politics for decades. By allowing independent-minded voters to participate in primaries, the system encourages candidates to appeal beyond their partisan bases and toward a broader electorate. However, this is still a relatively new system, and it will take time to fully feel its impact.

As I noted in my previous column, it has been extremely difficult for moderate Republicans to compete for major offices in Maine during the Trump era. Party operatives have found success by appealing to a specific segment of the GOP base. However, a semi-open primary creates a potential pathway for a more traditional Maine Republican—someone more in the mold of Olympia Snowe than Paul LePage—to gain traction. By appealing to unenrolled voters and encouraging their participation in the Republican primary, such a candidate could become competitive.

While the MAGA base may represent 75–85% of Republican voters, a center-right candidate who can attract a significant share of unenrolled voters—and motivate them to participate in the primary—could potentially overcome that advantage, particularly within a ranked-choice voting framework.

Restoring civility, trust, and bipartisanship in our politics will not happen overnight. It will be a long and challenging process. However, Maine has begun to chart a path forward. If ranked-choice voting and semi-open primaries prove effective in addressing some of our most pressing political challenges, they could serve as a model for broader national reform. As the saying goes, “As Maine goes, so goes the nation.” If it helps move us away from our current hyper-partisan climate, one can only hope that saying proves true sooner rather than later.

The issue with politics in Maine—and in the United States more broadly since at least 2010—is that we have been led by polarizing figures at the top of the GOP. These figures have had an outsized impact not only on policy decisions within their own offices, but also, more importantly, as de facto leaders of their party.

In 2010, Paul LePage was narrowly elected governor of Maine. Though his race was close, Mainers followed a national Tea Party–driven trend and also voted a Republican majority into both the Maine House of Representatives and Senate, giving the Maine GOP control of the entire state government. In short, Republicans in Maine were winning.

Just two years later, the story changed dramatically. Governor LePage’s famously toxic rhetoric took a toll on voters, and the party’s inability to produce significant positive changes in the state resulted in Democrats taking back the entire legislature. Aside from briefly regaining control of the Senate from 2014 to 2016, the Maine GOP has failed to control any meaningful part of state government for more than a decade. While Maine does lean left politically, it remains a fairly moderate state with many deeply red areas. So why haven’t Republicans been able to return to that winning form? I have a few thoughts.

If you look at today’s Maine Republican Party, its leadership more closely resembles Paul LePage than our moderate but right leaning US Senator Susan Collins. LePage energized a certain segment of the GOP and showed Republican voters a style of politics they found appealing. In my experience, Republicans in Maine are often critical of Susan Collins, while giving LePage a pass in many instances. They were—and still are—remarkably forgiving of some of the more controversial things he has said and done over the years, while simultaneously accusing Senator Collins of being a RINO (Republican in Name Only).

As polarizing as LePage has been, his influence pales in comparison to President Donald Trump, who has, for all intents and purposes, acted as the head of the national Republican Party since his 2016 election. Through both his presidency and his continued dominance within the party, his impact on partisan politics has been enormous. In elections across the country—whether in red, blue, or purple states—his influence has reshaped Republican primaries. By providing a clear political brand for candidates to embrace, Trump-aligned Republicans have experienced considerable sustained success. As a result, moderate Republicans often struggle to find a foothold. They face an uphill battle not only in general elections, but even in making it through a primary. Consequently, many otherwise qualified Republican candidates choose not to run at all. In that sense, the system is becoming increasingly broken.

At the national level, the country faces a challenging political environment. The current administration and its allies have engaged in conflicts that appear difficult to resolve—such as the war with Iran—with no clear off-ramp to return to a sense of normalcy, either domestically or internationally. Compounding this issue is a MAGA Republican controlled Congress that, in many cases, shows little appetite for reigning in or even checking executive power. Elections have consequences, and the effects of those outcomes are becoming increasingly apparent.

A lack of moderate perspectives at the national level has created serious challenges for the country. While upcoming elections may offer an opportunity to recalibrate, Maine faces its own version of this issue. A shortage of strong Republican candidates could result in limited checks on Democratic control at the state level. As it stands, Bobby Charles leads the Republican field for governor. His observed rhetoric and policy perspectives lead me to believe he is likely the favored candidate of the MAGA crowd. As such, in my view, he would struggle in a statewide general election against most Democratic nominees. That raises the possibility of continued one-party dominance in Augusta, with limited opposition to shape or challenge policy decisions—an outcome that could carry risks for a state with little margin for fiscal error.

One can hope that more moderate voices emerge in upcoming elections. However, the influence of the current political climate suggests that the Maine GOP’s struggles may persist—and that those struggles could have broader implications for the direction and success of the state as a whole.

For the most part, Gov. Mills has been fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which is consistent with her roots. She has managed our state budget responsibly (remember the AA+ Fitch rating from last summer and the $152 million budget surplus in 2024), guided us through some tough times, and, until recently, I was fairly confident she would leave the state in a better financial position than she found it. That changed when I caught wind of her direct payment plan, which she outlined in her 2026 State of the State address.

The governor has proposed mailing $300 “Affordability Relief Checks,” a name that is most likely a jab at the tariff-induced affordability issues Mainers have felt since President Trump took office. Aside from serving as a not-so-subtle shot at her political rival, the program fails to pass my sniff test. First, I strongly disagree with the rationale behind its funding formula. Her plan is to use $218.9 million from the state’s “Rainy Day Fund,” which has been built up over time through surplus tax revenues.

To be clear, the Rainy Day Fund is robust. It currently holds more than $1 billion and has not been drawn down at any point since 2020. At this level, it is approaching the statutory maximum. Therefore, it is not a bad idea to begin developing plans to use some of these funds to meet the state’s policy goals and economic needs — of which there are several that are concerning now and could grow into serious crises in the coming years. Of all the economic challenges our state faces, one-time “affordability relief” payments will do little to address them.

On balance, $300 will do very little to help the average Mainer catch up on any financial issues they may be facing. Meanwhile, we have serious problems that could be addressed using money from the Rainy Day Fund. Our health care system comes to mind. According to reports from the Portland Press Herald, 76% of our hospitals are at medium to high risk of severe financial trouble. With cuts to Medicare and Medicaid taking effect, the situation does not appear likely to improve anytime soon. Surely some of these funds could be used to shore up those systems to preserve the critical care that rural hospitals provide. The last thing we need is for folks to have to travel hours to Bangor, Augusta, Lewiston, and Portland for care that they should be able to count on right in our back yards.

Mainers are facing other challenges as well. The costs of housing and child care have risen substantially over the past decade, putting tremendous pressure on young families trying to make ends meet. These problems require structural solutions, not small, one-time payments. Surely, we would be better off with the expansion of affordable housing programs, or child tax credits much like the ones provided by the federal government during the pandemic years, which reduced childhood poverty by 46% during the years they existed.

Lastly, if we are consistently generating budget surpluses, are our taxes set at the correct rates? Is this an opportunity for the state to consider cutting income taxes? I know this may seem like an unconventional option in this day and age, but it should be part of an objective discussion. Republicans in Maine have pointed out that, under current law, it is not even legal to use Rainy Day funds for anything other than covering budget shortfalls, so tax cuts may, in fact, be a more logical path forward.

My concern is that the proposal for these payments is a political tool being used during a competitive primary season and could serve to curry favor with a divided Democratic electorate. Gov. Mills is facing a challenging primary against political newcomer Graham Platner, and her signature on direct payments to 730,000 Mainers could be seen as an inappropriate advantage at this time. I am not suggesting this was her intent, but the optics draw a clear connection between checks sent and votes cast — so much so that even some Maine Democrats have begun to question whether the payments are a good idea.

All in all, it is a positive thing that our state has a $1 billion cushion for government operations. The economic future of our country remains uncertain, and we may be facing stormy seas ahead. Now is not the time to use precious tax dollars for political purposes. There may be much rainier days ahead, and we do not want to look back with regret at how we chose to allocate our safety net during a time of political theater.

The removal of Maduro was likely to work out, in my opinion. First and foremost, there was an American-friendly replacement for Maduro ready to go before we removed him. Additionally, Venezuela and its people have plenty of incentives to work with the United States government to improve their economy and become a little bit freer one day at a time. Venezuela is in the West. North and South Americans have plenty in common. The majority of us practice the same religion. We like to blow off steam in similar ways. We compete in many of the same sports. We eat much of the same food. It’s not hard for a person from Caracas to see the world in a similar light to someone from New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles. The future relationship between the United States and Venezuela, and other countries in their region, is bright, and I don’t have much reason to believe otherwise.

Iran is different. Iran’s autocratic regime is theocratic. Before our forces bombed him and much of the leadership surrounding him, Ayatollah Khamenei hated the United States with a passion. Former Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman, one of the speakers at the 2026 Camden Conference, gave a firsthand account of meeting the Ayatollah. According to Feltman, during a meeting between Ayatollah Khamenei and then–United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Ayatollah listed his country’s grievances with the rest of the world, but he primarily spoke about the United States (which he referred to as “the Great Satan”) and all of our sins.

Much of what the Ayatollah spoke about was Iranian propaganda and a misrepresentation of what the United States was doing at the time (the meeting took place in 2013, during the Obama presidency). But what struck the author—and what really blew me away—was that Khamenei never mentioned Israel. His single-minded hatred of the United States shows me that dealing with Iran is a delicate matter. Iranians in 2026 don’t have the same worldview as Westerners. They do not share many of the same cultural norms that Western cultures share. As such, it was beyond foolish for the Trump administration to think that simply taking Iran’s supreme leader out by assassinating him and other top Iranian leaders would cause immediate regime change. Instead, we are seemingly stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On the one hand, if we were to take the nearest off-ramp, we would leave Iran seething and angry. A country whose people had turned on its autocratic leadership could now rally around his death. Khamenei’s son has been named his replacement, and according to our intelligence, not only was he more anti-American than his father, but he now takes command with his father and the rest of his immediate family having been killed by the nation he already hated most. It is impossible to know what future consequences our hasty strikes may have fomented. Iran is a power player in the Middle East, with an enormous population and access to abundant resources.

The alternative is to stay in an armed conflict with Iran in an attempt to completely topple their regime and see that a more U.S.-friendly government is installed, complete with free and open elections, respect for human rights, and an embrace of our capitalist values. There are a few obvious problems with this solution. First, it would be incredibly expensive for the United States and our allies. Our own economy is already stumbling under this war’s impact on the global oil market, and a prolonged, unpopular war could do significant damage to our global position, both politically and economically. The other obvious problem with trying to install an alternative government is that it is not easily done, and we (along with other countries that have attempted the same) have a terrible track record of doing it. Most recently, our prolonged attempts to install stable, democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq failed so miserably that Afghanistan is now run as an autocratic theocracy controlled by the Taliban, and Iraq is more comfortable working with the Iranian government at this point than with ours.

Not only were we unsuccessful in those countries, but we actually approached those conflicts with more care, more support, and stronger reasons than we did with our current war in Iran. Further, the governments and militaries of Afghanistan and Iraq were weaker than that of Iran’s current regime.

Simply put, I have no confidence that this war will end well, whether it ends tomorrow or ten years from now. At this point, all it has done is strengthen our enemies (Russia is making more money than it has in years from increased oil revenue) and weaken our own economy and international position. I would say I hope the Trump administration ends the conflict before too much damage is done, but I think the time has already passed for that. The best we can hope for is that this wakes MAGA Republicans up to the reality that the man they put in power—and continue to support—is rapidly making their lives less safe and more expensive. At this point, I think it is more important to have regime change in our own country than in Iran.

If you’re mostly in agreement with what I have said so far, then the rest of the column is for you. I have been engaging in political discussions and debates with anyone willing to engage with me for as long as I can remember. If you are a regular reader of my columns, you have probably caught on to the pattern that I am politically moderate for the most part and have swung left or right throughout my life depending on a variety of topics and factors.

When I discuss politics with someone, whether they agree with my perspectives or not, I want to be genuine if nothing else. I have personally argued with a science teacher that the hype around global warming is overblown. My evidence was that in 1816, there was no summer in New England. Today, I understand that regardless of the actual realities of global warming or extreme climate change, my use of one year of data against hundreds of years of data made for an ineffective argument, however, I was genuine in my attempt to discuss the topic, and I was not dishonest with the person I was discussing the topic with. I was not trying to pull a fast one. There was nothing for me to gain by winning that particular debate at that moment. It was just good, clean, honest political discourse.

Fast forward to today, and I feel we are evolving into a society that is rapidly losing its ability to engage in important political topics in a serious and genuine fashion, regardless of what side of the pendulum you are on. This reality has reared its ugly head most recently in an ongoing drama regarding the participation of transgender youth in Maine high school sports. Before I continue, I want to disclose that I have been involved with high school sports for a long time, both as a competitor and as a coach. This issue is difficult for me to discuss, and I have put it off for as long as possible.

The question about whether transgender athletes should be able to compete against athletes that are opposite of their biological gender is both an important issue and a sensitive topic. However, hotheads on both sides of this issue should step back and look at the facts. First and foremost, conservative politicians need to leave the kids out of it. This topic can be discussed without posting pictures of high school kids to a politician’s Facebook page in an effort to gain political support. Secondly, conservatives need to stop assuming the intentions of these athletes. I have read too many accounts of people claiming boys are dressing like girls to gain an advantage in a sport. Simply put, that isn’t happening.

On the other side, progressives need to come to grips with the reality that fighting for the right for a transgendered female athlete to compete against biological females is a losing battle. It’s not the civil rights issue they are making it out to be. A New York Times/Ipsos poll from January of this year showed that this is an 80-20 issue. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that they did not believe transgender female athletes should be competing in female sports. Unsurprisingly, that included a whopping 94% of respondents that identified as Republicans, but I was personally surprised to read that a full 67% of self-identified Democrats agreed with the Right on this issue as well.

That data tells me there is a common sense solution to this common sense issue. The International Olympic Committee has already established strict rules about transgendered athletes competing in the Olympics. The NCAA has fallen in line with public opinion and the wishes of the Trump administration and enacted a policy that states the “women’s category [is] restricted to student-athletes assigned female at birth,” though the organization strongly encourages all campuses to remain welcoming environments for all students.

There is a solution to this question in Maine, but we won’t come to this solution without being able to talk about the issue in an open and honest way. Again, this is a sensitive topic and children are involved. The adults in charge need to be able to have an honest discussion about how to proceed moving forward, without either side projecting their own fears into the equation. This isn’t about political points. It’s about doing what’s best for everyone involved.

At my new school, my teaching responsibility is financial literacy full time. My first year at Bonny Eagle was difficult due to the transitional nature of working at a school that is twice the size of my previous one. I was assigned only one subject to teach, but fortunately for me, the subject is mostly free from controversy. Guiding students through the basic fundamentals of career planning, budgeting, investing, and credit management has been rewarding for a number of reasons. The students love the subject. It’s much easier to keep a teenager engaged when introducing them to the power of compound interest than it was when I had to teach them about the branches of government.

As I mentioned above, the standard financial literacy curriculum is anything but controversial. However, there have been a few moments in my past six and a half years of teaching this content that have generated awkward or difficult discussions. As a public school teacher, I have always tried to be as objective as possible when educating my students about the world around them. I very rarely tell them that what they are doing is harmful or that they are making the wrong decision, but recently one significant change has forced me to take a more direct approach with some of them.

In November 2023, online sports gambling became legal in the state of Maine. At first, I was a fan of this policy change. I am a capitalist at heart, and I believe adults should have the right to participate in activities that stand to hurt no one but themselves, within reason. After all, New Hampshire had legalized online sports gambling in 2019, and it seemed to be working just fine for them.

My opinion on this matter changed this past fall. Several of my high school students had turned 18, and they were happy to fill me in on the online sports gambling they were doing. I teach in southern Maine, so my students were getting into the habit of driving to New Hampshire to place bets, since you must be 21 years of age or older in Maine to do so. Even with the age restrictions in place, some of them were able to place bets in Maine because their parents allowed them to use their accounts. Some days they were excited to talk to me about their successes; on other days, they were devastated by their losses.

As a financial literacy educator, I couldn’t bring myself to celebrate their successes with them. I constantly warned them that any short-term gains would likely be erased by future losses, and that casinos count on gamblers becoming addicted to early success because it leads to an unquenchable thirst for winning. Even the most experienced and knowledgeable sports bettors lose thousands—if not hundreds of thousands or millions—over time chasing that winning feeling. It’s how casinos make their money.

As the online gambling culture grows in the United States, it is increasingly aimed at clientele with very little ability to manage the addiction associated with it. A recent study from Common Sense Media showed that sports gambling advertisements are reaching adolescent boys as young as 11 years old. That same study revealed that 36% of boys aged 11–17 admitted to gambling in the past year. Of those who gambled, 50% admitted to spending more on gambling than they had initially planned. Simply put, this is not a demographic that can responsibly handle access to this lifestyle.

With this information readily available, one might think that states like Maine or New Hampshire would scale back access to gambling websites and casinos. Instead, as we move into 2026, the opposite is happening. This summer, Maine is set to extend online gambling opportunities beyond sports betting to include full casino games. Bets that were once made on a sports game that takes a few hours to complete will now be placed on an instant spin of a wheel. It’s one thing for adults 21 years of age or older to walk into a casino and make these types of bets, but it’s an entirely different matter to open this type of betting to anyone with an internet connection—especially when that connection is already being accessed by the wrong people through easy loopholes.

Ultimately, it is up to parents and guardians to keep a closer eye on their children’s gambling habits, but I am afraid that our state may have made a bad bet when it comes to online gambling. There is so much in this changing world that puts our kids in harm’s way, especially on the internet—much of which is difficult for those charged with protecting our most vulnerable populations to control. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider our state’s relationship with the online gambling world, a course we do, in fact, have the ability to change.

Growing up, I would thumb through various periodicals (mostly to look at the cool photos from throughout the decades), and one always stood out to me in particular because it captured a sporting event, yet it felt mysterious. It was the famous photo of Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists in solidarity as “a cry for freedom and for human rights.”

As a kid, I didn’t understand why two runners who had experienced so much success would feel the need to protest. What I didn’t realize was that both men, as African Americans, were experiencing profound injustice in the United States in 1968, and they used their stature as world-class athletes to let their country know exactly how they felt. “If I win, I am an American, not a black American. But if I did something bad, then they would say ‘a Negro.’ We are black and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight,” Smith said in a press conference after their protest.

Naturally, Olympic organizers frowned upon the actions of Smith and Carlos. Officially, the International Olympic Committee forbids any form of “demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda.” Though that stance may seem tone-deaf, it is understandable. If the committee were to allow such demonstrations without consequence, the Games could quickly be reduced to a quadrennial political protest convention. Instead, the Olympics serve as a break from world affairs, allowing us to focus on the unity and national pride they can cultivate.

Fast forward to the 2026 Winter Games in Italy, and we have another athlete reprimanded by the IOC for political expression. Ukrainian skeleton competitor Vladyslav Heraskevych was disqualified after wearing a helmet featuring images of twenty Ukrainian athletes and coaches killed in that country’s war with Russia. He appealed the decision, and although the sole arbitrator who heard his case was moved by Heraskevych’s motivation, he still ruled against him.

Some may find this ruling hypocritical, especially considering that the IOC has banned Russia from competing in the Olympic Games because of its invasion of Ukraine. However, as I explained above, I understand the committee’s position. The IOC banned Russia in an effort to remove controversy from the Games so athletes like Heraskevych could compete without the presence of representatives from their aggressor nation.

Even though I agree with the IOC’s rule, I want to make it clear that I approve of — and even encourage — the actions of athletes like Smith, Carlos, and Heraskevych. Though their political expressions resulted in disqualification from their respective Games, their use of their platforms to raise awareness of serious issues is far more impactful than any medal around their necks could ever be. It’s important to know when to speak up for what’s right, and that’s exactly what they did.

Athletes from the United States entered the opening ceremonies of this year’s Games to a wave of boos, jeers, and antagonistic whistling that only grew louder when Vice President JD Vance was shown on the jumbotron at San Siro Stadium. As a result, several Olympians — including cross-country skier Jesse Diggins, curler Rich Ruohonen, and freestyle skier Hunter Hess — spoke out against recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions in Minnesota. Hess went so far as to say, “I think it brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now. There’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t. Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.”

Hess’s comments invited criticism from right-wing politicians, beginning with President Donald Trump, who called him “a real loser,” and Senator Rick Scott, who said Olympians who make such statements should be stripped of their uniforms. I understand the desire for United States Olympic athletes to express pride in their country and represent the nation with dignity. Still, it must have been difficult for those athletes to be welcomed to the Games with such a chilly reception. What the MAGA movement needs to understand is that if it chooses to treat the rest of the world with disrespect, the rest of the world will respond accordingly.

I’m proud of our Olympic athletes for competing at such a high level, and I am thankful for those who have chosen to use their platforms to let the world know that some of our brightest and best citizens strongly disapprove of what the MAGA movement has done — and is doing — to our country. It is not always easy to stand up for what’s right, but speaking up at the right time, and in the right way, leaves a lasting legacy for those brave enough to do so. It also sets a precedent for others who may one day face their own moment to speak.

The first month of 2026 has begun in chaotic fashion. We are overloaded with intense events, followed by a multitude of loud, aggressive voices offering opinions about what just happened—often without fully taking everything into account.

Focusing on the United States, we have a long history of politicians stretching the truth or liberally interpreting events—if not outright lying—to fit a preferred narrative during tenuous situations. In fact, presidential lies go back at least to President James K. Polk, who misled Congress when he claimed Mexican forces had invaded U.S. territory in an effort to convince lawmakers to declare war on our southern neighbors. In a similar vein, President George W. Bush’s cabinet officials infamously insisted that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and that an invasion was therefore necessary. A very costly invasion and subsequent war later proved that accusation to be untrue.

Both Polk’s and Bush’s misleading of Congress and the general public could be explained—at least by their defenders—as the result of a lack of concrete evidence at the time the mistruths or exaggerations were told. Even after no weapons of mass destruction were found, President Bush could still claim that he genuinely believed they existed and that, ultimately, he was responding to Saddam Hussein’s provocations.

Other historical examples of presidents misleading the country are far more cut and dry. My favorite president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, found himself caught in a major lie about a U-2 spy plane shot down by Soviet air defense systems while flying over Soviet airspace in 1960. After initially claiming the aircraft was conducting weather research, Eisenhower was forced to tell the truth when the pilot survived and was captured by Soviet forces. Though it was a national embarrassment, our commander in chief took his medicine and owned up to the cover-up and the lies.

Perhaps the most notable presidential liar of the twentieth century, Richard Nixon was forced to resign after lying about his role in the Watergate scandal. Because of his repeated lies, abuse of power, and ongoing attempts to cover up his wrongdoing—ultimately exposed through secret White House tape recordings—he lost the trust of his own political party and, more importantly, the trust of the American people. In the end, Nixon did the right thing by resigning and allowing the nation to heal.

Today, we have a president who, according to The Washington Post Fact Checker, has made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims. Look it up. We have all witnessed them. Some are trivial; others are enormously consequential and have had a profound impact on the lives of Americans. I am most personally affected by the lies he tells about immigration policy. He repeatedly claims that immigrants are criminals, garbage human beings, and that his enforcement efforts are only removing the “worst of the worst.”

During the “Catch of the Day” roundup in southern Maine, ICE agents detained and removed from the state several hardworking, honest, law-abiding immigrants who were living in the area with legal status. In one instance, agents swept up a mother who had just dropped her son off at school. In another, they detained a college student on his way to class. Perhaps the most egregious example was the detention of a father of three who was delivering necessities to his wife, who had just given birth to a newborn in the NICU at Maine Medical Center. When interviewed, the man’s pastor stated that he was not “the worst of the worst,” but rather “the best of the best.” These lies are ruining the lives of honest, hardworking people who are our neighbors, co-workers, and friends.

However, these are not the worst lies the president has told during his time in office. The most troubling falsehoods came in the hours following the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were killed by ICE or Border Patrol agents in separate incidents. The administration characterized both individuals as domestic terrorists, and in Pretti’s case, he was accused of being an assassin attempting to “murder federal agents,” according to Stephen Miller, the president’s deputy chief of staff.

Simply put, in an effort to enforce policy goals, save face, and avoid accountability, the Trump administration blamed the victims. One could argue that the Renee Good shooting was nuanced, and one might even stretch to claim the officer acted in self-defense. The Alex Pretti shooting, however, is clear as day. He was on the ground, holding a phone in one hand and his glasses in the other. He had already been disarmed of the firearm he was legally carrying. He was then shot in the back and fired upon nine additional times. He posed no threat to any of the five or six officers restraining him.

Trump lied. His officials lied. The American people are tired of the nonsense. When events occur in plain sight, the truth cannot be escaped. Doing so shatters trust. At this point, there is little reason to trust the federal government on any matters of importance. Any statement released by the Trump administration is worth less than the paper it is printed on. He is a dishonest man surrounded by a team of dishonest people.

The truth about the Trump administration is pure and simple. Like dishonest politicians before him, Trump and his team must be held accountable for their inability to tell the truth—before an even bigger lie harms more citizens of this country and further damages our nation’s reputation as a whole.

Despite receiving a tremendous amount of criticism for using U.S. military resources to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela, it is hard to argue that it was the wrong move. Had the Obama or Biden administrations pulled off the same maneuver with the same level of precision, I believe it would have been widely celebrated in the United States.

I want to make one thing about this event very clear: I have no faith that the Trump administration planned everything out in advance, and so far very few details about the next steps have been provided to the general public.

But, strangely enough, there may not need to be at this point.

By removing Maduro while keeping his vice president in power, the administration has achieved several major objectives while causing the least amount of collateral damage possible.

Removing Maduro should, at least theoretically, put Venezuela back on a path toward democracy. At worst, the Maduro regime was robbing ordinary Venezuelans of a quality of life that all people in resource-rich nations deserve.

I have long believed that the United States can and should take steps to improve the lives of citizens living under oppressive or failing governments. It has been heartbreaking to witness suffering in regions that could otherwise thrive. Since the early 2000s, I have focused these feelings on three countries in particular: Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.

In my view, ordinary citizens in all three of those countries could enjoy a high quality of life if their governments were run responsibly. Each nation is rich in natural resources, adjacent to countries that have experienced wealth and stability, and already have infrastructure in place that could support a transition to a 21st-century market economy.

One generation’s hasty decision about how a country should be run — or who should be in charge — should not define that nation’s future in perpetuity, as we have seen in the three aforementioned cases.

International intervention, if done responsibly and carefully, can provide the spark needed to put these countries on the right trajectory and improve the lives of their citizens. I believe the United States has taken such a step in Venezuela, but ultimately, only time will tell whether this intervention proves successful for all parties involved.

From an American perspective, involvement in Venezuela presents an opportunity for the United States to exert positive influence in the Western Hemisphere. As Americans, we cannot seem to agree on immigration policy, and the vast majority of migrants come from Central and South America.

A more active role in economic development throughout the region could mitigate the pressures that lead so many citizens to leave their home countries for the United States. Proactive partnerships with regional governments could also slow the production and movement of drugs.

If I were in the Trump administration, I would strongly push for agreements and aid to Mexico to help dismantle the influence and productivity of drug cartels that operate with near impunity. Our resources would be better spent helping these governments cultivate stable, prosperous societies that encourage their citizens to remain at home rather than move north.

Finally, Stephen Miller and others in the Trump administration who are entertaining the idea that the United States should take Greenland by force should be removed from their roles for jeopardizing our relationship with Denmark and the rest of our NATO allies.

The notion that we have a right to take Greenland simply because we possess a powerful military is no different from Putin believing he can willfully seize Crimea or other regions of Ukraine. In fact, I find our meddling with Greenland to be worse than Putin’s meddling in Ukraine, because Denmark is a founding member of NATO and the people of Greenland have expressed no desire whatsoever to be annexed by the United States.

To be clear, it is important for the United States to maintain a military presence in Greenland. However, pursuing it by force is a reckless fantasy. Fortunately, Senate Republicans such as Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski and Don Bacon have said the idea is a nonstarter, with Bacon calling Trump’s plans for Greenland “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”

For now, we can only hope that this group has enough influence to prevent the United States from heading down a path from which there may be no safe return.

The United States is uniquely positioned to shape the future of global policy in a way that benefits people around the world. I hope we stay focused on the Western Hemisphere and use our power to usher in a new moment of American influence — one marked by impact investments and the sharing of resources that enhance the quality of life for everyone in our corner of the world and beyond — while avoiding the needless escalation of tensions with our Western allies.

With Trump as president, there are no guarantees of smooth sailing ahead.

Being familiar with one’s own political beliefs also helps people correctly identify the political party or movement that is most likely to help them accomplish their policy goals through voting. For that reason, I regularly had my students take two or more political identity surveys to more accurately gauge what their political leanings might be. In some cases, students were confused by the results. In others, they were disappointed. One of my favorite moments was watching a student realize that he was actually far more conservative than he had previously assumed—or even wished.

In the early 2010s, it was somewhat fashionable to be young and left-leaning. Even adolescent males were more or less expected to align themselves with progressive values during that period, especially if they were raised in households that leaned left. It is likely that this student fit that stereotype. His parents probably voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and against Donald Trump in 2016 and beyond. Like many teenagers, he had adopted a political identity without ever seriously examining whether it matched his own beliefs.

The most accurate political ideology tests move beyond a simple two-sided spectrum and instead place individuals into one of four boxes within a larger field. This field contains the traditional left-right spectrum along the horizontal axis and the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum along the vertical axis. Measuring oneself across multiple spectrums allows us to think beyond the mundane left-versus-right divide that so often boxes people firmly into one party or another. It also opens our minds to the possibility that our political beliefs may transcend party affiliation.

Have you ever heard someone describe themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal? That individual fits neatly into the lower-right quadrant of the four-box political field, and the candidates they support may not fit cleanly into one party or the other. While this kind of political identity is sometimes criticized as inconsistent, it more often reflects nuance rather than confusion.

Returning to the student I referenced earlier, when he finished his political ideology assessments, the results placed him squarely in the upper-right quadrant of the four-sided field. He found himself aligned with politicians such as George W. Bush, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. This was not where he wanted to land. However, as one of the most intelligent students in my class, I knew he understood the questions he was answering and why he was answering them the way he was.

Truth be told, he was responding the way many boys and young men do in their teens and early twenties. They tend to dislike taxes, oppose illegal immigration, and support harsh punishments for crime. Likewise, many males in this age group are uncomfortable with—or openly opposed to—the LGBTQ+ community and its policy goals. Whether one agrees with those views or not, it was no surprise that this student was identified as both fiscally and socially conservative.

I use that student’s experience as a prime example of how easily someone can misidentify their own political beliefs and affiliations. It also demonstrates how difficult it can be to place an individual neatly into a single ideological box. That brings me to the title of this column, which I chose with precise, if imperfect, language: Am I right?

Students, parents, and now readers have questioned my political leanings time and time again over the past twenty years. Some are convinced I am firmly on the left, while others are equally certain that I am conservative. Curious about the answer myself, I recently took the Political Compass test again, carefully answering each question with the same mindset I bring to writing this column.

The Political Compass test assigns numerical values to its results, with ten positions extending in each direction along both axes. Unsurprisingly, it placed me two points to the right of center. That number fluctuates slightly from time to time, but I have never moved more than two points left or right since I began taking the test 18 years ago. More notably, I have never moved from my position of six points down on the libertarian side of the spectrum. My current placement puts me in the company of figures such as Marquis de Lafayette, John Locke, George Washington, Ralph Waldo Emerson, John F. Kennedy, and Ron Paul. I am comfortable with that company.

I would encourage all readers to explore their own political identities and to reconsider their tribal allegiances when it comes to party affiliation. As for my own leanings, I have received feedback from readers accusing me of being a “leftist,” a “communist,” and “disappointingly conservative”—sometimes all at once. I strive to avoid expressing views that are too extreme in any one direction, so if you feel that my writing comes across as extreme, I would encourage you to reflect on why that may be.

My political views have changed very little over the past two decades, at least according to the results of the Political Compass tests I have taken. If it feels like the people around you are changing, it might actually be you. Take a test yourself and find out.

For a variety of reasons, mainstream media pundits, writers, and commentators have been hesitant to describe his behavior and policies in such straightforward terms. And it stands to reason. Anyone on the left who has stood up to the president since he took office has been chastised by him, harassed by his sycophants, or worse, removed from their positions and left jobless. It is risky to confront a tyrant, and quite frankly, the people who should be standing up to his bullying are members of his own party. Few have done so. So today, I am putting my money where my mouth is and making my own declaration.

A while back, I wrote a series of three essays discussing the history of immigration in Maine and the United States. I argued that immigrants, both documented and undocumented, have had a net positive impact on American society, and that in many cases they share the same morals and values that honest, hard-working, native-born Americans hold. As such, it would make sense for Republicans to embrace these individuals instead of vilifying them. Fast forward to today, and we see the opposite: a full-on assault on immigrants, documented or not. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have been operating in an extreme and terrifying manner, often failing to identify themselves and operating without warrants.

Two recent ICE cases leave me particularly hopeless. First, ICE arrested two firefighters at the scene of a wildfire in Olympic National Park in Washington state. Individuals who should have been hailed as heroes were ushered away. What threat could they possibly have posed? In Maine, the arrest of a soccer player in Lewiston last summer struck me personally. What reason did ICE have? When asked, they had none—only the tired refrain: “they are in the country illegally.” That is not a good enough reason, especially considering Trump promised us ICE would only target hardened criminals. His lies are destroying honest people’s lives.

Another worrying development this past summer was the president’s use of the National Guard to “restore order” in America’s cities. He appears to be using Washington, D.C., as a test case, because his jurisdiction there is broad. Though his cleanup has been effective, the heavy handed nature of it has left locals frustrated and feeling powerless. He says his next target is Chicago, yet he has no such authority there. I visited Chicago within the past year; crime is down, and downtown I witnessed fewer issues than I often see in Greater Portland. Using the National Guard to advance one’s political interests and intimidate opponents is a clear step toward authoritarianism.

Another hallmark of fascism is the forcible suppression of opposition. The firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez should raise eyebrows for anyone concerned about the future functioning of our society. Even our own Republican Senator Susan Collins admitted she was “alarmed.” Worse still is the unlawful firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, which should terrify all of us. The Federal Reserve must remain above partisan politics. If Trump’s stacked Supreme Court rules this firing legal, we can abandon the concept of separation of powers at the federal level—and likely beyond. The arbitrary removal of high-ranking government officials puts our entire system at risk.

Speaking of our system: don’t look now, but the dollar is down—way down. The value of the U.S. dollar has dropped by 10% in the past year. Instead of acknowledging this as a problem, Trump insists it is a good thing. “So when we have a strong dollar, one thing happens: It sounds good. But you don’t do any tourism. You can’t sell tractors, you can’t sell trucks, you can’t sell anything,” he claimed, offering little evidence for this incredible reversal of the economic truths taught by teachers, professors, and business leaders throughout my life. I guess what’s up is down, what’s left is right, and what’s yes is no in our new Trump world.

Folks, if you’ve believed in the MAGA movement before, now is the time to call it what it is: a scam. We are at a tipping point in this country. If we don’t rein in the lies and whims of our wannabe dictator, we may be headed for a very dark future—economically and culturally. We are being led by a president, and unfortunately an entire party, that cannot admit wrongdoing. In the face of such extraordinary efforts to deny reality, it can be hard to tell which lies are the most destructive.

So today, I am calling on anyone who has ever been a registered Republican: do the right thing. Acknowledge what is happening before it is too late. Stand up to the bully.