An observer's Reflections

2017 Reflections

In 2017, I wrote Escaping Oz: An Observer's Reflections, opening with my deep concern about the nation's capacity for critical thinking. The proliferation of media channels has further weakened that capacity. Despite claims of its demise, mainstream media still shapes the national psyche. Today, finding relevant facts requires more research, but many people have little interest in investing the time. Those who stay in echo chambers miss important information, leaving us more vulnerable to manipulation.

Against this backdrop, let's examine recent news involving the 2026 midterm elections, the Democratic Party, the Democratic Socialists of America, a national psychological unraveling, and the media's influence on the national psyche.

2026 Midterms

While losing the House to the Democrats was a probable outcome, the loss of the Senate is a tremendous, unexpected blow to the GOP. Now comes the finger pointing. Why did the GOP lose control of Congress? Like the Democratic Party after '24 loss, the GOP will need to reflect on the election outcome.

The Real Opponent

When analyzing these races, I often sensed that the candidate vying for the House or Senate seat was running against the President of the United States (POTUS) and not the other candidate. For the Democratic candidate, the message was to stop POTUS because he was (fill in the blank). The president, meanwhile, encouraged voters to imagine that he was on the ballot. Asking voters to mentally replace a candidate's name with his own takes a particular kind of arrogance—a topic I'll revisit below. The media amplified this dynamic by framing policy around an individual, turning every race into a contest between a Democratic candidate and Trump. More on that topic in the media section.

Messaging

The POTUS is not a skilled orator and can speak clumsily at times. To his credit, you often know what he is thinking and he'll speak with anyone. Still, he is too combative and abrasive for some, perhaps many. He desperately wants to dominate a news cycle. His approach, though, is counterproductive since the media frames everything around him — feeding into his need for attention. Wash, rinse, repeat. This endless cycle makes it harder for Republican candidates to communicate their own messages.

Did Republican candidates remind voters about legislation eliminating taxes on tips or overtime, or IRS data showing more taxpayers receiving refunds? What about lower prescription drug prices, major investment returning to the United States, and America's reindustrialization? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) have undergone significant changes, while the nuclear energy industry is attracting tens of billions in private investment. Shouldn't that appeal to green-energy advocates and those concerned about carbon emissions? Mainstream media will not promote these accomplishments, and the GOP did a poor job of highlighting them. Instead, Republican candidates spent most of their time talking about POTUS.

Iran War

I examine the media's framing of the Iran conflict elsewhere in this essay. Opposition to the war has focused largely on gasoline prices, with few large-scale street protests—events I am certain the media would readily cover. Although the war has affected prices, annual CPI inflation has hovered around 3.5% since the conflict began, a substantial moderation from levels during the Biden administration. Still, persistent messaging about gas prices, including from the Iranians, has taken its toll. How do today's prices compare with the past 20 years? Adjusted for inflation, gasoline cost more than the current average of $3.86 per gallon from July 2005 to October 2008, except for a six-month period; June 2009 to December 2014; and November 2021 to November 2022. I don't recall the media and opposition party raising the issue so relentlessly then. The GOP could not escape it this time, and Vice President Vance even blamed the war for the party's electoral drubbing.

Secretary of War/Defense

Secretary Hegseth's prosecution of the war has come under great scrutiny but arguably he's taken more body blows for administrative action. Remember "Flybygate" where an Apache helicopter performed a flyby near the residence of Kid Rock? When an Army general wanted to investigate if safety protocols were violated in flyby, he was told to drop matter and when he didn't, he got fired. The incident furthered the rift between the administration and GOP Senator Thom Tillis (NC). This rift, as you'll read further in the essay, complicated the electoral map for the GOP in North Carolina.

There has also been a purge of senior personnel (generals/admirals) in the department that's received much publicity. Was the purge needed? Many will argue that staff reductions were politically/ideologically based. Perhaps, though consider the US armed forces has, proportionately, three times the number of general and flag officers compared to WWII. It's not likely these were important issues for voters though it no doubt created an opportunity for media to showcase what voters might perceive as departmental level incompetence. Also, for your consideration, when was the last successful audit of this department? There's been no mention of this.

Arrogance

Controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House may breed arrogance. That attitude may have contributed to GOP divisions, reflected in the failure to pass the SAVE Act. The president's own arrogance is extraordinary. Although his narcissism and arrogance alienate many, it is hard to imagine anyone seeking the presidency without a strong narcissistic streak. Yet that same arrogance can produce bold administrative, economic, legislative, and foreign policy victories—accomplishments largely absent from GOP messaging, as noted earlier.

Candidate Quality

When competing in anything, it's fair to say competitors want to put their best foot forward. Here are a few examples where the Republicans whiffed.

Ken Paxton

In a state as large and great as Texas, was this really the GOP's best option? Why nominate Paxton with so much political baggage? A Republican majority in the Texas House impeached him during his tenure as attorney general. Regardless of whether the impeachment was partisan, the party could easily have avoided the scandal by choosing someone else. Incumbent Senator John Cornyn had fallen out with POTUS, who called him disloyal. Did the party and the president consider a viable alternative? Paxton was such an obviously poor choice that even his ex-wife urged voters to take one for the team, arguing that voting for Talarico would be worse. Hardly an inspiring pitch.

Michael Whatley

When incumbent GOP Senator Thom Tillis got sideways with POTUS over the Big Beautiful Bill and Flybygate, the president endorsed Whatley, the former RNC Committee chair. Whatley then lost to Democrat Roy Cooper. Would Tillis have won? We'll never know but the amplification of his rift with the president certainly did not help the GOP.

Darline Graham

It's understandable why she would serve out her brother's (Lindsay) term. It was a great way to honor the family. That said, she was clearly out of her element as a campaigner and looked uncomfortable in the role. I mean no disrespect but I sense that politics was not her aspiration. Like Texas, was Ms. Graham the best the GOP could offer in South Carolina?

Kelly Loeffler in 2020

Taking a trip on the way back machine, people may forget she ran for senate in Georgia against the Reverend Rafael Warnock. Much like Ms. Graham, she was appointed in 2019 by her governor to finish the term of a senator (Isakson) who had to resign for health reasons. She subsequently lost in the 2020 special election to finish out Isakson's term. Ms. Loeffler married well. Her husband is the CEO of the Intercontinental Exchange, who as circumstances would have it, was a wealthy donor to the GOP including a cool million to the 2020 Trump campaign. Political payoffs are understandable though at the end of the day, the goal is to win the seat. This is not an indictment of Ms. Loeffler's capabilities. Again the goal is to win the seat, in this case against someone (Warnock) who had not served in public office.

Democratic Party - Be careful what you wish for

This is not your father's Democratic Party. The era of twice-elected Bill Clinton feels distant. Since his escalator descent in 2015, this Lex Luthor has antagonized Democrats, who have devoted much of the past decade to removing him from the political scene. That campaign inevitably reshaped the party in unexpected ways. This section explores those changes and the forces behind them that party leaders refused to acknowledge. The time for that reckoning has arrived.

Bernie Bros

The party sidelined Bernie Sanders in both 2016 and 2020. In this 2018 essay, I discussed his presidential bids and suggested who would win the presidency in 2020. Had Sanders been allowed to face Trump in 2016, I’m unsure who would have won, given their appeal to overlapping constituencies.

The Democratic Party was no fan of socialism in 2016, which is why they had no room at the Inn for Bernie. Hillary Clinton bailed out the Democratic National Committee — literally — so the party's loyalties were bought and paid. Tough luck, Bernie! Though as I wrote in the aforementioned essay, the Bernie movement was far from dead despite the party's action. Bernie came out strong in 2020, though once again, the party kicked him to the curb in favor of the "sharp as a tack" Joseph Robinette Biden who ushered in a new campaign strategy by ensconcing himself in a basement. That approach allowed the incumbent President Trump to claim he had more supporters at his rallies than Biden had at his own.

Despite the setbacks, Bernie's efforts were still bearing fruit. In 2016, an unknown bartender from Brooklyn, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), joined the Sanders campaign as an organizer and bathed in Democratic Socialism. The rest, as they say, is history. The media sensed the importance of her 2018 House victory and so did Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the newly elected AOC joined a sit-in at Pelosi's office. The two later had a private meeting, following public disagreements, just a few months into AOC's tenure.

Clearly, socialism was on the rise within the party, although party chieftains were loathe to acknowledge it. Voters, however, noticed and the Democratic Socialist influence continued.

Take This Candidate and Shove It

The party acted brazenly in the 2024 presidential primary essentially forcing the Biden candidacy onto their voters despite overwhelmingly obvious signs of cognitive decline. The media, of course, dismissed these charges. The Democrats threw a myriad of legal challenges on Democrat blue blood, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Probably the worst thing opponents within the party could level at RFK Jr. was the anti-vaxx accusation. He did not become the devil incarnate until he joined the Trump administration as Health and Human Services secretary. How do Democratic Party voters feel about the choice restrictions within the primaries? Was this restriction the same threat to democracy that Democrats foist upon the GOP and President Trump? Hold that thought.

Secure in their nomination of the cognitively impaired Biden, the stage was set for the general election against Trump. Then came the presidential debate scheduled ahead of the Democratic National Convention. How the Democratic Party surmised that their presumptive nominee could debate anyone shows either incompetence or malice. Did party leaders expect him to perform well, or did operatives want him to fail publicly so they could replace him? If they wanted another candidate, why not act before the primaries? Was that, too, incompetence or malice?

Then we had the mysterious withdrawal by President Biden via letter on non-presidential stationery on social media (X) on a Sunday afternoon. Maybe Democratic Party voters anticipated that their new nominee would emerge the old-fashioned way — via the convention. It did not. Their new nominee came about the new-fashioned way, a teleconference before the convention. How did all those primary voters who cast their ballot for Biden feel about this maneuver? Their delegates, pledged to Biden, flipped their vote via computer screen. Was this a threat to democracy? How would Democrats react if the GOP did something similar to elevate Mr. Trump in such a manner? Release your thoughts.

Who would have emerged had the Democratic Party nominee been elected during the convention? What did the party fear about selecting their nominee during the convention? Arguably, for the third election in a row, the party did not select their best candidate.

Changing the Base

Meanwhile, the party's base was slowly changing no doubt in some part due to the machinations of party leadership and the rise of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to higher offices around the country. In recognition of their strength, DSA policies began to seep into the Democratic Party lexicon. Some party leaders like Gavin Newsom began to openly embrace socialist platforms. Newsom is someone with eyes on the highest office in the land and, like a chameleon, he'll adjust behavior, voice, humor, interest and emotional reactions accordingly. Other leaders were reluctant to call out the more extreme DSA policies, which further emboldened the burgeoning socialist movement.

Now they've let the fox in the hen house. DSA will be far more assertive. They are assertive to the point of not wanting Hakeem Jeffries as the future Speaker of the House — the same Jeffries who refused to call out socialist trends within his party. Petition to replace Hakeem Jeffries as Democrats’ House speaker hits 500k signatures.

Don't ever forget, the mob can come after you too, Hakeem.

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

The DSA's rise cannot be attributed solely to Democratic Party negligence. The economic divide was already well developed by the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) that further served to exacerbate it. The lack of accountability for crisis-era financial wrongdoing drove Occupy Wall Street protesters into the streets. In their view, the crisis was ‘resolved’ by privatizing gains and socializing losses, while no one went to prison.

Core Supporters

A recent 60 Minutes segment highlighted a striking contrast between rallies for Michigan Senate candidates El-Sayed and Rogers: El-Sayed’s crowd was noticeably younger. I suspect younger voters also drive DSA support nationwide. That is unsurprising; its message speaks to their anxieties, making them especially receptive. In a March 2020 essay, I worried that capitalism would be judged a failure because we were not practicing it as originally intended—a perception that helps explain the DSA’s appeal to younger voters. My concern is that most in this cohort do not fully understand the economic and political dimensions of Socialism/Marxism. Much of that gap reflects an educational system whose curriculum has drifted toward dismantling the very cultural and economic model that sustains it.

Sanders Candor

One thing I always appreciated about Bernie Sanders is that he always stayed on point with messaging. Whether it was the minimum wage, taxing the wealthy, or Medicare for all, I knew where he stood. Senator Sanders' Medicare for all proposal motivated a post where I explored if such a plan could work and its expected outcomes. The DSA platform takes policy to another level.

Who is the DSA?

Likewise, I appreciate the DSA's candor about their aims. Recently one of their co-chairs waxed on about defunding the police, eliminating the Senate/presidency/Supreme Court/ICE/borders, ridding the nation of most prisons, defunding the Pentagon, mass amnesty for undocumented immigrants, and other spine-chilling proposals. If the DSA tells you what they believe and what they want, believe them. Note that most, if not all, of their proposals involve tearing down an existing structure. There is a reason for that approach. More on this later.

From the DSA website, "Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history." The organization also made clear that Bernie’s New Deal or social democratic program did not go far enough in accomplishing the socialist aim of establishing worker and social ownership of the economy. For the DSA, this time it's different. They eschew authoritarian socialism yet that's the only form in which this economic/political model ever existed.

We should have wide eyes about Socialism and Marxism. While the DSA brands itself as a Socialist organization, they tag their language with similar labels as Marx particularly in their contrast of billionaires and those who made them wealthy. This is Marx's class struggle. It was AOC who uttered, "No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars." For AOC, the billionaire's existence is a policy failure. Marx, like the DSA, was an advocate of social ownership of the economy. No doubt the DSA was elated to hear former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich call for the nationalization of Tesla and SpaceX.

The DSA seeks a return to Debsian socialism, named for Eugene Debs, who ran for president as a Socialist several times in the early twentieth century. This non-Marxist form of Socialism is rooted in American political traditions. Yet contemporary DSA leaders explicitly call for dismantling existing institutions and traditions, as illustrated earlier by one of their co-chairs. Such dismantling is a feature of Marxism.

The Marx influence on the DSA is unmistakable. Marx was a fan of the tragic play, Goethe's Faust, he who made a pact with the devil, Mephistopheles. Marx's favorite line from the play was, "Everything that exists deserves to perish." For the DSA, the things that must perish include ICE, Senate, and the borders, etc.

Often you'll also hear DSA candidates support state run childcare. Marx advocated this benefit so the state could control their upbringing (aka indoctrination) and consequently move women out of the home and into the labor force. The Communist Manifesto was all about the abolition of the present state of things and the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

Driven by intense loathing of the 45th and 47th president, the Democratic Party unwittingly reshaped its traditional platform and undoubtedly alienated some constituencies. It also attracted new supporters—but they were drawn by the socialists, not traditional Democrats. The party has let the fox into the henhouse. Even the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing metaphor falls short: the DSA openly declares itself the wolf.

As the Democratic Party is learning, they've caught a tiger by its tail.

Psychological Unraveling

As noted, the Democratic Party intensely hates the 47th president, as do Never Trumpers and, undoubtedly, other Republicans who conceal their hostility. That hatred did not exist before his escalator descent. He was poised to disrupt politics: he had no political baggage, voting record, or career in public office, and probably few, if any, political favors to repay. His livelihood had never depended on public office. His extreme narcissism drove him to seek the nation's highest office in his first bid for public office.

Imagine a candidate with that background and freedom to act. He delivered a populist message he had voiced for years. Those views carried little weight when he was a real estate developer and reality-show host. As POTUS, however, he threatened the established order.

Those who felt threatened took unprecedented steps to disrupt his presidency. In summer 2026, the Director of National Intelligence declassified a trove of documents exposing actions in 2016-2017 by people inside and outside government. By then, however, the damage was done. The Deep State, media, think tanks, and other institutions continued to undermine his tenure. That hostility spread to the public, some of whom have cheered attempts to assassinate him. Now we have No Kings rallies, even as federal courts repeatedly hear challenges to presidential exercise of constitutional Article II authority over the Executive Branch. Kings have no courts to check their power.

This narrative has persuaded some that a dictator occupies the White House. Recently, I told someone that I had spent part of my childhood under a military dictatorship. They replied that I should be accustomed to what is coming out of the White House. For those who have lived under dictatorships, that comparison is deeply insulting. The regime I experienced was mild compared with most; consider how many people flee dictatorships for our shores. In a recent interview, a Polish member of the European Parliament looked directly into the camera and urged Americans not to vote for Socialists, warning that they would experience an unwanted dictatorship.

Other examples of this psychological unraveling include refusing government refunds because the president was responsible for the funds and, recently, rejecting a Trump account for minors simply out of hatred. These reactions reflect a malaise that leaves us vulnerable to potentially damaging political outcomes.

Media influence in national psyche

While mainstream media does not have the impact on the national psyche that it once enjoyed, the messaging simply arrives in a more diffuse manner through various channels. Media framing via the personalization of policy should also not be understated. Below we'll examine a few areas where the media impacts our national psyche.

War

If you were of adult age during these conflicts, how did you view Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, the second Iraq War, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and the wars in Syria and Libya? Did you consider them unjust or illegal? Recall their stated justifications, troop deployments, and casualties. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States was, for all practical purposes, responsible for running the country.

During those conflicts, did opposition-party members warn U.S. service members not to obey illegal orders from POTUS? Did the media and opposition party criticize the Department of Defense's conduct of the wars? Were there reports about hardships involving troops' meals? With thousands of ground troops deployed, I suspect meal choices were limited. This is not to dismiss hardships in combat, but such concerns were not central to media coverage of earlier conflicts.

Coverage of the Iran conflict differs from that of recent wars. In an interview with a journalist outside mainstream media, Senator Kennedy of Louisiana said intelligence reports indicated that Iran intended to expand its ballistic missile and drone capabilities enough to deter outside attempts to dismantle its nuclear weapons ambitions. Missiles capable of reaching Europe would, in effect, allow Iran to hold the world hostage. The Internet's Wayback Machine also contains numerous clips of politicians from both parties insisting that Iran must not acquire a nuclear weapon, including former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton advocating a direct attack.

The media has not reminded audiences of the stated reasons for earlier conflicts: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait for Operation Desert Storm; weapons of mass destruction for the second Gulf War; fighting terrorism and the Taliban in Afghanistan; fighting Al Qaeda in Syria; and, in Libya, removing Qaddafi? As noted earlier, the administration could have placed the Iran conflict in that context. It did not, and the media was certainly not going to do so on its behalf. How would coverage of an Iran war differ under Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, or Biden? Compare the rationale for previous conflicts with the rationale for this one. These observations and questions are not meant to justify any of these wars, but to invite scrutiny of how the Iran conflict is framed compared with earlier military deployments.

Coverage of this war has focused largely on gasoline prices. The increases are real and strain household budgets. Yet I do not recall comparable coverage during the periods noted earlier, when inflation-adjusted gasoline prices were higher.

The media has also said little about how the nation's shift toward green energy, pipeline restrictions, and reduced refinery capacity have affected fuel prices, particularly diesel. The focus on gasoline prices kept Republicans on the defensive throughout the recent election season, so they could not—or did not—highlight other favorable economic trends.

Data Centers

Data centers have been around for quite some time. Telephone company central offices (the non-descript buildings without windows that connected your old landline calls) morphed into data centers. The World Wide Web would not function were it not for data centers. No doubt you've driven by data centers, completely unaware of what that building housed. What changed? Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Broader AI fears about job losses and apocalyptic outcomes have seeped into concerns about data centers. One worry centers on water usage. I wonder if the public understands how little water a data center uses compared to say, a golf course. Well, it's about the electricity prices, right? This outcome, no doubt, is just like real estate — location, location, location. A recent study, however, suggests that data centers have a minimal impact on residential electricity prices. Some cities/municipalities have mandated that data centers supply their own power, which seems a reasonable compromise to assuage electricity price concerns. Yet the concern remains.

Mainstream media coverage has exacerbated public concerns about data centers, although it would be an oversimplification to suggest the media created those fears. The more compelling question is whether media coverage has amplified those concerns by presenting potential consequences as inevitable outcomes rather than distinguishing documented impacts from projections, worst-case scenarios, and disputed claims.

Nevertheless, data centers became a political issue in the recent election with support and opposition within both parties. Since the president supports further data center development for economic and geostrategic reasons, it became a wedge issue used by Democrats against the GOP.

Free Floating Anxiety

This essay cannot fully explore the topic. Younger generations' mental health struggles are well documented. Despite our society's abundance—a visit to Walmart or Costco makes that clear—relative safety, and strong economic figures, this cohort continues to experience malaise. For some, heavy debt from a college degree of questionable value undoubtedly fuels regret, a subject for another essay. Overall, younger generations enjoy better living conditions than ever before. Yet their anxiety is real, leaving them vulnerable to extreme messaging, radical economic systems, and authoritarianism. For a deeper examination of free-floating anxiety in an authoritarian environment, I recommend Mattias Desmet's The Psychology of Totalitarianism.

Media Framing

By tying policy to POTUS personally, the media magnifies credit and blame and reduces institutions to a single face. Most people absorb this framing through mental shortcuts, identity, and emotion rather than institutional analysis. Domestic and foreign headlines often attribute actions not to ‘the U.S. government,’ ‘the government,’ or ‘the Trump administration,’ but to Trump himself.

This framing focuses readers' attention—and anger—on one person. It creates a simple narrative centered on an individual rather than a larger group, placing disproportionate accountability on the president while obscuring the responsibility of other parts of government or other entities. Policy then becomes a marker of identity: opposition targets the polarizing person rather than the policy, and support is treated as a declaration of loyalty. That assumption undermines critical thinking and forces unnecessary binary choices.

How does this affect the public? Many people follow politics sporadically through headlines, social feeds, and short videos, allowing the dominant framing to become their default understanding. For those already aligned by party or culture, it reinforces existing beliefs and deepens social division. Hostility also spreads to the president's associates, who become part of that same identity. Consider vandalism against Tesla vehicles or people refusing Starlink—even when it offers their best connectivity option—because those companies' CEO is connected to the president. What was his offense? Volunteering for government service.

Ultimately, this personalization provokes more anger, resentment, and fear than detailed explanations of events, issues, and processes. Those lingering emotions shape later judgments about competence and legitimacy more than policy details do, contributing to the psychological unraveling discussed earlier. This framing makes information easier to absorb, but also leaves us more vulnerable to manipulation.

In Conclusion

Together, these threads suggest that the 2026 midterm results reflect political framing and perception more than any single policy. Overshadowed by a narcissistic president who dominates the news cycle, Republican candidates failed to highlight their accomplishments. Weak nominees, directly or indirectly supported by the president, compounded GOP difficulties.

Democrats' decade-long focus on defeating Trump and their primary maneuvering reshaped the party, opening the door to DSA influence that party leaders hesitated to confront. Both developments unfolded amid declining critical thinking, anxiety—especially among younger people—that increases receptivity to extreme messaging, and media coverage that reduces policy to one man. This framing fosters anger and resentment rather than understanding.

A public that remains in echo chambers instead of seeking facts stays vulnerable to manipulation by political messaging from any party. We are in need of greater awareness that can only come from individual effort. The future always arrives sooner than expected. Will you be ready?