Who Will Control America’s Future?

 

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the future of democracy rests squarely in the hands of everyday citizens rather than politicians or billionaires. Rising economic pressure, extraordinary political spending, gerrymandering, and systemic erosion of constitutional checks and balances have left millions of Americans questioning whether their individual votes still matter. In this episode, host Dr. Jackalyn Rainosek examines the defining forces shaping the current political landscape and makes a compelling case for civic engagement. From rising costs of living to high-stakes political battles like the Texas Senate race between James Talarico and Ken Paxton, she breaks down why public authority is a temporary trust that must be held accountable. Ultimately, this discussion challenges voters to move past frustration, reject division, and actively protect the democratic process before November 3.

Episode Summary Points:

• The State of Democracy: With the November 3, 2026, midterm elections approaching, declining public confidence in leadership highlights the urgent need for active citizen participation and restored accountability.
• The Influence of Wealth: Extraordinary political spending by wealthy donors—such as Elon Musk’s reported contributions—raises critical questions about political equality and whether government serves ordinary citizens or concentrated financial resources.
• Ethics and Public Service: Public office is a temporary public trust, making transparency, independent oversight, and the strict prevention of conflicts of interest essential.
• Economic Pressures: Ordinary families face severe financial insecurity and high costs of living that demand evidence-based solutions from political leaders rather than political slogans.
• Democratic Backsliding: Democracies can weaken gradually through the erosion of independent oversight, institutional pressure, and executive overreach rather than sudden collapse.
• Election Integrity: Protecting voting systems, maintaining lawful procedures, and safeguarding local election workers are vital responsibilities that must remain above partisan politics.
• Gerrymandering and Representation: Deliberate manipulation of district boundaries weakens electoral accountability and fuels political polarization.
• The Rule of Law: Independent courts and the faithful application of constitutional principles are foundational to protecting rights and maintaining public trust.
• The “rage economy”: Political and media entities often profit from division and outrage, but leaders who champion civic dialogue and common concerns offer a constructive path forward.
• The Human Cost of Polarization: Persistent hostility damages personal relationships and emotional well-being, requiring emotional maturity and deliberate, respectful communication.
• Action Over Predictions: While national polls and political forecasts provide context, elections are ultimately determined by actual voter turnout and engagement.
• Generational Responsibility: Preserving constitutional rights and a functioning democracy is an ongoing obligation entrusted to the American people on behalf of future generations.

—

Watch the episode here

 

Listen to the podcast here

 

Who Will Control America’s Future?

Billionaires, Political Power, Threats To Democracy, And The Citizens Who Can Change Everything

The State Of Democracy In The 2026 Midterms

What I want to talk to you about today, and I want to ask you a question. Who will control America’s future? Will it be billionaires, political power, threats to democracy, or will it be the citizens like you and me who vote and can change everything? Now, I want to welcome you to the show. In this episode, I want to talk with you about something that should concern every American, regardless of political affiliation, economic circumstances, religious beliefs, or where we live.

I say that because I believe we have the opportunity with this election to make a major change and to help us save our democracy. On November 3rd, 2026, in the midterm elections, I believe we are living through one of the most consequential periods in modern American political history. Across our country, Americans are expressing profound concerns about the cost of living, the concentration of political power, the influence of billionaires, the integrity of our elections, and the direction of our government.

Millions of Americans are struggling financially. Many are watching political leaders exercise extraordinary power while questioning whether the constitutional checks and balances designed to protect our democracy are functioning as intended. The reality is they are not. Others are concerned about the enormous sums of money being spent to influence elections, and still others are asking whether their individual voices make a difference. I believe every voice will make a difference in this election.

In fact, I believe the American people possess far more power than any person in political office. If we vote massively, the politicians that have created this problem, we can remove them from political office. I want you to think about that. We have the power of our vote to protect our democracy since unused voting power cannot protect our process. Democracy requires participation, knowledge, and it requires courage. It requires citizens who understand that the freedoms they enjoy were secured through the sacrifices, determination, and persistence of generations who came before us.

I want to examine several developments shaping the approaching elections. We are going to explore the recent polling in what it tells us about public confidence in President Donald Trump. We will examine the extraordinary political spending of Elon Musk and other wealthy donors. We will consider what the economy means to ordinary people’s families, and we will discuss the importance of protecting elections and the role of our courts.

 

 

We will examine gerrymandering and its consequences for representative government. We will look at the remarkable political campaign unfolding in Texas, where James Talarico is challenging Ken Paxton for the United States Senate. Through our conversations, I want us to remember something fundamental. The future of America does not belong exclusively to presidents, billionaires, political parties, or powerful institutions. It belongs to you and me, the American people.

Interpreting Polling Numbers And Public Dissatisfaction

The question before us is not simply, which party will win on November 3rd? The much larger question is what kind of a country are we willing to work together to create, to protect, and to lead to the generations that follow us? Now, recent polls present a troubling picture for Trump and the Republican Party as the midterm elections approach. The October 18th Washington Post, ABC News, had a poll that reported that Trump’s approval rating had fallen to approximately 1/3 of Americans that were surveyed. Two-thirds expressed disapproval.

The polls also indicate an advantage for Democratic congressional candidates among likely voters. These findings are politically significant, yet I want us to look beyond the immediate implications for the election. Here are the questions that you and I have to ask ourselves and ask others. What do these numbers tell us about the relationship between the government and the people it is supposed to serve? What happens when large numbers of citizens lose confidence in their national leaders? How do elected officials respond when the public expresses such substantial dissatisfaction?

I believe these questions deserve serious consideration. In a representative democracy like ours, public officials are entrusted with authority. They do not own that authority. They receive it temporarily through the constitutional and electoral processes. They are accountable for how they exercise it. When large numbers of Americans express dissatisfaction with their government, elected officials have a responsibility to listen. Many of them are not. They must examine the consequences of their decisions. I don’t think a bunch of the ones that are MAGA Republicans are doing that at all.

 

Every voice will make a difference in this election. In fact, I believe the American people possess far more power than any person in political office.

 

They’re on their own focus and their own little group or their gang that they’ve formed. They must consider whether their policies are improving the lives of the people that they are representing, which is not happening. They must recognize that holding public office is a responsibility entrusted to them by the American people. It is not an entitlement. It is not an opportunity to accumulate unlimited power or financial base. It certainly is not permitting the disregard of the constitution.

We must also remember something important about public opinion. Polls measure attitudes at a particular time. They are not election results. An advantage in national polling does not guarantee victory in individual congressional districts or Senate races. Voter participation matters. Candidate quality matters. Local political conditions matter. The legal process governing elections matters. I want to emphasize this distinction since I’ve heard people express confidence that Democrats will experience a sweeping victory in November. Perhaps Democrats will make a substantial gain.

Perhaps individual races will produce unexpected results. Yet none of these outcomes guarantee what is going to happen with the votes contributed by the citizens of the United States. Political predictions cannot replace yours and my participation. We must all understand what this is. The current dissatisfaction with Trump creates an opportunity for Americans to examine the direction of the government. Dissatisfaction alone is not enough. It must be accompanied by informed decisions and meaningful actions by you and me.

 

Democracy requires participation, knowledge, and requires courage.

 

I also want us to consider the emotional consequences of declining confidence in the government. When citizens repeatedly hear promises that are not fulfilled, they become discouraged. When they observe political leaders attacking one another rather than addressing serious problems they have, they become cynical. When they believe their government is no longer responsive to their needs, they may withdraw from political participation. That’s not helpful. That withdrawal can create a dangerous cycle. The less involved citizens become, the less pressure public officials may experience to remain accountable.

Our participation creates a situation where political figures have to be very clear that they are accountable to us. The less accountable government becomes, the more discouraged that people feel if they see no accountability. The less involvement of citizens becomes, again, I’m saying less pressure is put on public officials when we do not hold them accountable. I know I’ve repeated that several times, but it’s very important for all of us to understand.

This is one of the reasons I believe civic participation is so important. We cannot allow disappointment to become a permanent disengagement. We cannot allow frustration to convince us that our voices no longer matter. We cannot surrender our constitutional responsibility simply through exhaustion because the American people are sending a message. The question now is whether that message will become meaningful action on all our parts. I want to begin the discussion for this episode with a question that I believe every American should consider.

The Influence Of Billionaire Campaign Spending

What happens to a democracy when a small number of extraordinary wealthy individuals can spend more money influencing elections than millions of ordinary citizens could ever contribute? That is not a simple question about campaign finance. It is a question about power. It is a question about representation. Ultimately, it’s a question about whether our government continues to serve the people or become increasingly responsive to those with the greatest financial resources. Consider the recent report concerning Elon Musk.

According to the October 2026 reporting, Musk has committed extraordinary financial resources to support Republican political efforts during the midterm elections. The report total was $276 million. $276 million from one person. Imagine what that amount of money represents to ordinary people like you and me. Imagine how many families could receive assistance with housing. How many students could obtain educational opportunities? How many communities could strengthen their schools? How many people struggling with medical expenses could experience financial relief?

These comparisons are not arguments that individuals should be prohibited from spending their wealth. They are reminders of the extraordinary scale of resources being directed toward political influence. The legal right to contribute to political causes is one matter. The consequences of concentrating political influence among extraordinary wealthy individuals is another. That’s the distinction that all of us have to pay attention to. The Supreme Court 2010 decision in Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission significantly changed the landscape of political spending by protecting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions under the First Amendment.

The decision did not eliminate all campaign contribution limits, and independent expenditures remain legally distinct from direct contributions to candidates. Yet the broader system that developed after this decision by the Supreme Court has enabled political organizations to raise and spend extraordinary amounts of money. The question before you and me is, how do we protect our democratic accountability when that kind of money is being spent? We frequently hear that money is necessary to communicate with voters. That is true.

 

We cannot allow disappointment to become a permanent disengagement. We cannot allow frustration to convince us that our voices no longer matter. We cannot surrender our constitutional responsibility simply through exhaustion.

 

Campaigns require resources. Candidates need opportunities to explain their position. Voters need information. Yet enormous political expenditures can also saturate television, digital media, and communities with carefully designed messages. Some messages educate. Others, like the one that Musk pays for, attempt to frighten. Sometimes his efforts are to distort complicated issues into emotionally charged accusations. Now, some present viable information, but that’s not Trump’s purpose.

When political advertising becomes relentless, citizens may find it increasingly difficult to distinguish genuine public discussion from attempts to manipulate their emotions. Political spending by wealthy individuals occurs across the political spectrum. It means Democratic and Republicans. It’s just that Musk is invested more than anyone else. The largest concern is the relationship between money and political power. When elected officials depend on wealthy contributors and powerful political organizations, citizens have legitimate concerns to examine whose interests are being represented.

I’ll give you an example. Talarico does not pay back money. Paxton, that’s all he’s running on, is PAC money. We should ask, what relationship exists between major donors and elected officials? What policies are those donors advocating? How transparent are the financial arrangements? What safeguard prevents conflict of interest? How can ordinary Americans ensure that their concerns receive meaningful attention?

Again, the questions I gave you are very reasonable. They’re essential questions on how we can maintain our democracy. The constitution has established a government where legitimacy comes from the people when it functions the way it’s supposed to but the constitution has established the government whose legitimacy comes from personal wealth is not what has been established. It’s from the people. Wealth may provide individuals extraordinary opportunities to influence political discussion. It does not make their lives more valuable than the lives of ordinary people.

I believe the answer begins with transparency, accountability, and strong ethical standards and informed public participants. That’s you and me. It requires citizens who refuse to surrender their political responsibilities to wealthy individuals, powerful organizations, or political parties. That’s one of the reasons I’m supporting Talarico and Texas. Now there’s another troubling issue which is reflected in articles that we’re going to be examining.

Government Ethics And Personal Financial Gain

We’re going to examine the relationship between government service and personal financial gain. The Washington Post highlighted concerns involving individuals who entered government with promises to reduce its size and influence and substantially became involved in activities that raise questions about their personal financial benefit. The President of the United States is a perfect example of him coming into office and he has done everything he can to gain a greater financial base.

This subject deserves real careful attention. People from business backgrounds may bring useful knowledge into public service, yet these relationships create opportunities for conflicts of interest. That is precisely what ethical standards are intended to address any watchdogs Trump has eliminated progressively. The watchdogs, the guard lines, have lessened. Imagine an individual who enters government and participates in decisions affecting federal contracts, regulatory requirements, or the allocation of public resources.

The individual may obtain knowledge unavailable to ordinary citizens. They may develop relationships with influential decision makers. They may participate in discussions affecting entire industries. Now imagine that same individual benefiting financially from business activities connected to those government decisions. Trump is not the only one that has been doing this. You can see Johnson. You can see any of them that have gained financially.

Even when an arrangement is technically lawful, the public has a legitimate interest in understanding whether there are conflicts of interest that exist, and they certainly do. Where appropriate disclosures need to be made. Officials required to recuse themselves from decisions. Public resources are used appropriately. Private interests receive the advantages of being unavailable to competitors and are decisions made in the public interest.

 

We should never accept corruption as an unavoidable condition of government. We should demand transparency.

 

These questions are essential. Public service carries special responsibility. Government officials are entrusted with authority that belongs to the people. They do not have that authority. They exercise it temporarily. They’re accountable for how they use it. I believe one of the most dangerous developments in any democracy occurs when citizens begin to accept conflict of interest, self-dealing, and the misuse of public authority as ordinary features of political life. We have done that.

We have a chance to stop it in the election. When that happens, and when this occurs, ethical standards can gradually lose their meaning. Condemn that once generated serious public concerns becomes normalized. Again, that’s what’s happened in our country. Citizens become exhausted by repeated controversy. Some people begin to believe that corruption is inevitable. I reject these conclusions. We should never accept corruption as an unavoidable condition of government.

We should demand transparency. We should insist upon independent oversight. We should support legitimate investigations when credible evidence raises concerns about misconduct. We should expect public officials to recognize that their responsibilities to the American people take precedence over personal financial interests. The government is a public trust. That principle must never become negotiable.

Evaluating Economic Policy Through Human Realities

I want to move on from the enormous wealth being spent on politics and talk about the financial circumstances of ordinary Americans. I want us to think about the contrast. On one side, we have individuals who can contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to influence the election. On the other side, we have families who struggle to pay their bills. Families who worry about losing their home, older Americans who must carefully manage their retirement income. Young adults wondering if they will ever be able to afford a home.

Parents who work long hours and still find themselves struggling to provide financial security for their children. This contrast deserves our attention. Economic statistics cannot tell us the great deal about what is happening in our country. Statistics do not fully communicate what financial insecurity feels like. I want you to imagine a single mother who works full-time. She gets up early, prepares her lunch for her kids, and she goes to work. At the end of the day, she returns home exhausted. She still has work to do.

She has fulfilled. She fulfills her responsibilities. She still worries about how she’s going to pay her rent. She receives a notice that her automobile insurance premium is increasing. She needs her automobile to get to work. She cannot simply stop driving. Her children need food. They need clothing and medical care. Every month, she must make difficult decisions about how she’s going to use the money she earns. Imagine that she turns on the television and hears political leaders celebrating economic achievements.

She hears about the stock market. She hears about national economic growth. She hears the lies that claim the economy is performing exceptionally well. Her personal circumstances remain difficult. What does she conclude? She may conclude that political leaders do not understand her life. She may begin to feel invisible. She may lose confidence that the government can solve the problems that matter most to her family. The loss of confidence has consequences as well. Economic insecurity can affect physical health.

It increases emotional stress. It creates conflict within families. It can limit educational opportunities and reduce people’s ability to plan. As a mental health professional, a coach, and an organizational development consultant, I’ve spent years and decades observing the effects of stress, uncertainty, and the difficult life circumstances on individuals and families. I know that people do not experience financial problems only as a number on a balance sheet. They experience them emotionally. They worry. They lose sleep. They question their decisions.

They may feel ashamed of circumstances that have influenced their economic condition far beyond their individual control, and they become discouraged about their ability to improve their lives. This is one of the reasons I believe economic policy must be evaluated through its human consequences. We need to understand inflation, wages, housing costs, and the relationship between employment and financial security. We need to recognize that our economy can produce substantial wealth while leaving many households under serious financial pressure.

Economic growth and economic well-being are related, yet they are not identical. The distribution of economic opportunities matters. The affordability of essential services matters. The ability of people to participate meaningfully in the economy matters. Political leaders need to be required to explain how their policies will improve these conditions. Not simply promises. We need to see it through evidence. We need to see it through measurable results and through a willingness to acknowledge when policies are not producing the intended outcome. That’s where we are. That’s the reason this election is so important.

I want Americans to become more demanding in their evaluation of economic claims. What a politician promises to lower prices asks what policies will establish that objective. When a candidate promises to improve wages, examine the proposed mechanisms. When a political leader claims that tariffs will strengthen the economy, examine the potential effects on consumers, businesses, employment, and international trade. When they promise tax reductions, examine who receives the medicine and how those reductions affect public revenue and services.

Understanding Democratic Backsliding

When they propose changes to health care, education, or retirement programs, examine the consequences for people who depend on those services. We deserve economic discussions that recognize the dignity and the daily realities of ordinary Americans. We deserve more than slogans. We deserve responsible leadership. Now, I want to turn now to something I believe every American needs to understand. Democracy does not always disappear at three dramatic events. It’s weakened gradually. It may continue to exist, but elections may continue to be held.

Courts may continue to issue decisions. Legislation may happen. Yet the ability of those institutions to limit government power can become increasingly compromised. Political scientists have studied this process in countries throughout the world. It is often described as democratic backsliding. America is in more of a situation than just democratic backsliding. The process can involve weakening independent oversight. It can undermine confidence in elections. It can place pressure on the judiciary. It can restrict independent journalism and use government authority against political opponents.

We’ve seen it all. No single political dispute automatically establishes that a country has become authoritarian. The evidence must be viewed carefully. We have to see the patterns of behavior. Repeated attempts to weaken institution independence deserve scrutiny. Efforts to undermine lawful election processes deserve scrutiny. Attempts to use government authority for personal or partisan advantages deserves scrutiny. The Atlantic’s reporting on any kind of movement like we’re talking about, raises concerns that some encourage Americans to examine the conditions of our democratic institutions.

I believe we need to understand a fundamental distinction. A strong executive branch is not automatically an authoritarian executive branch. Presidents are constitutionally entrusted with substantial responsibilities. They must carry out lawful duty. They must respond to national emergencies.

 

Constitutional limitations protect all of us, including those whose political beliefs differ from our own.

 

They must administer federal laws. They must exercise the authority assigned to the president. Yet that authority has limits. The constitution has established three branches of the government. Congress possesses legislative power. The President exercises the executive authority. The judiciary interprets and applies the law in cases properly before it.

These branches are not intended to function as personal instruments of one individual. Their responsibilities are divided to prevent the concentration of unchecked power. The founders understood the dangers since they had experienced a government under a monarchy. They recognized the possibility that leaders could abuse their position. They established a constitutional system intended to limit government power while protecting individual rights. Our responsibility is to preserve that system. We must be willing to examine the contact of political leaders, including leaders whose policies we support.

Constitution principles cannot depend on which political party holds power. A violation of constitutional limits does not become acceptable when committed by someone whose political preference resembles our own. Lawful conduct does not become unconstitutional simply when carried in by someone whose political positions we oppose. The standards must be the constitution and law, which we are having a hard time remembering in this country. That commitment is essential.

I want you as readers to consider what happens when citizens become willing to excuse abuse of power as long as their preferred political leader benefits. The safeguards that protect everyone become weaker. When political power eventually changes hands, those weakened safeguards may no longer protect the people who once supported their erosion. Constitutional limitations protect all of us, including those whose political beliefs differ from our own. This is one of the most important lessons Americans can remember.

Protecting Election Integrity And Local Administrators

We are approaching an election which will determine control of the Congress. That possibility creates enormous political pressure. Parties want to win. Candidates want to succeed. Donors want their contributions to produce results. Citizens want preferred policies representing the government. Those interests are understandable. Yet elections must genuinely be the place that we show what we want. Recent reports concerning federal officials privately advising the states about possible election interference raise questions that deserve serious examination.

The many threats that Trump has made. There are federal officials that are now helping states to determine how they can establish the election process so that it’s not interfered with in each state. The election officials must protect our voting system. They must establish reliable procedures for processing ballots. They must maintain accurate records. They must respond appropriately to legitimate legal challenges. They must ensure the eligible voter can exercise their right to vote.

I also want to emphasize the human dimensions of election administration. Across America, thousands of people work to make elections possible. Many are local public servants. Some are volunteers. Others have spent years developing expertise in election procedures. They perform detailed, demanding work that receives relatively little public attention when elections proceed smoothly. When political controversy arises, these individuals can become targets of suspicious hostility and intimidation. This is unacceptable. We know what Trump has done in the past, whether it’s in Georgia or other places, demanding certain things that he had no right to demand.

Election workers deserve protection while carrying out their lawful responsibility. Citizens deserve accurate information about voting procedures. Candidates deserve access to legitimate legal processes when they believe election laws have been violated. These are the principles that we live by in a democracy. Protecting election integrity does not require suppressing lawful voting. Protecting voting rights does not require ignoring credible evidence of misconduct. We can do both. We can maintain accurate voter registration systems.

We can verify eligible people according to the law. We can protect ballot security. We can investigate credible allegations. We can ensure that every eligible citizen has a meaningful opportunity to vote. These responsibilities should unite Americans. I believe the greatest danger arises when election administrators become a weapon of partisan conflict. When citizens are encouraged to believe that every unfavorable outcome is fraudulent, trust in democratic institutions deteriorates. When legitimate concerns are ignored, trust also deteriorates. The answer for me and for you is to have transparency, evidence, lawful procedures, and accountability.

The Consequences Of Partisan Gerrymandering

I want every one of you to remember something. The integrity of our election is not determined by whether our preferred candidate wins. It is determined by whether the election is conducted according to law and whether results accurately reflect the ballots lawfully cast. It is a very strong principle and it’s one that protects us from partisan loyalty. Now, I want to examine another issue that I’ve talked about before, and that is gerrymandering.

Many of you have read about it, know about it, but I want you to imagine something in which voters are divided relatively evenly between two political parties. Now, imagine that the political leaders responsible for drawing electoral districts design boundaries that give one party a substantial advantage. That has been a major discussion and a demand from the current president. The boundaries may divide neighborhoods. That’s what happens. They may separate communities that share common interests. They may concentrate voters from one political party into a small number of districts.

They may distribute those voters among several districts in ways that weaken their electoral influence. That’s not what our country is about. The results can be a system in which the number of seats won by a party differs substantially from its share of the statewide votes. Deliberate manipulation of boundaries for partisan advantage raises serious concerns. I want us to remember a very important principle. Elections should make representation accountable to the voters. When distinct boundaries are designed primarily to protect elected officials from electoral competition, that accountability is weakened.

Gerrymandering can also influence political behavior. In districts where one party is overwhelmingly favored, the most consequential elections may be the party primary. Candidates may then face strong incentives to appeal to the most politically active members of their own party rather than the broader electorate. This can contribute to polarization, it may discourage compromise, and it may make it more difficult for representation to respond to the concerns shared by voters across a political division.

The legal issues are complicated, but in Rucho versus Common Cause in 2019, the United States Court concluded that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts. What happened was they weakened the Voting Rights Act, which gave various states the opportunity to change the districts right in the middle of a census period. We always do it every ten years in the census to determine what our representation is going to be. What has happened is the gerrymandering has been an effort to create political parties, a specific political party, having the opportunity to win.

One of the most disparaging things that I see is that Southern states have had the opportunity to attack racially designed districts that were established to have racial groups in America be represented appropriately in Congress. What I’m saying to you is, don’t just depend on the candidates that are running for a specific office that you’re interested in. Let’s look at the Supreme Courts in every state because the Supreme Courts in states make the decisions that affect representation for years. That is one of the reasons Americans should pay close attention to judicial elections and appointments.

We need to understand the qualifications of judges. We need to understand the legal issues they may be asked to decide. We need to protect the independence of the judiciary. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee has emphasized efforts to challenge Republican redistricting strategies. These efforts reflect the substantial political consequences of district boundaries. You, as a reader, I want you to recognize that fair representation should not be treated as a principal longing exclusively for one political party.

Both parties deserve fair representation. Independent voters deserve fair representation, and a community protected by voting rights laws deserves the full protection provided by those laws. Even though the Voting Rights Act protected so much of this and managed what states were doing, that is gerrymandering. Our commitment should be for lawful and accountable representation. That commitment must remain consistent regardless of which party benefits from a particular map.

The Importance Of State Courts And Judicial Independence

This brings me to another important consideration, the courts. We frequently hear the decisions from the United States Supreme Court. These divisions can affect our constitutional rights, federal authority, voting procedures, and the relationship between government institutions. Yet state courts also exercise extraordinary authority. They interpret state constitutions. They resolve disputes involving state laws. They may determine whether election procedures comply with state constitutional requirements. They may play important roles in cases involving redistricting, voting rights, and election administration.

In many states, voters participate directly in the selection of judges, and others judges are appointed through procedures established by state law. Now, these differences matter. Judicial elections and appointments can influence the direction of state law for years. I believe Americans need a much greater understanding of how their courts function. That is the reason Richard Wilson and I do a program on my show every month.

 

The rule of law is not a democratic principle or a republican principle. It is a foundation of our American principles of democracy, and it deserves commitment from all of us for the rule of law.

 

We need to understand the distinction between legal reasoning and political preference. We need to examine the evidence and arguments presented in important cases. We need to recognize that judicial independence is essential to constitutional government. Judges have a responsibility to interpret and apply the law. They must not simply deliver outcomes preferred by political leaders. When courts are perceived as an extension of a political party, public confidence and legal systems can deteriorate.

People need to believe that their legal rights will receive fair consideration. They need to trust that government officials are subject to the law. They need to know that constitutional protections do not disappear when political power changes hands. The rule of law is not a democratic principle or a republican principle. It is a foundation of our American principles of democracy, and it deserves commitment from all of us for the rule of law.

Navigating The “Rage Economy” In Texas Politics

Now I’m going to bring this to Texas. I’ve spoken many times about my admiration for James Talarico. I believe he represents an important opportunity for Texans to consider a different approach to political leadership. His campaign against Ken Paxton has attracted national attention. In his recent conversation with the New York Times about what he calls rage economy, billionaires, and the possibility of flipping taxes provides an important framework for understanding what is going on in this political struggle. The phrase rage economy is easily understandable and it is meaningful.

We live in a time when anger has become extraordinarily valuable. Political organizations use anger to raise money. Media organizations use emotionally charged content to attract attention. Social media platforms can amplify messages that provoke outrage. Political candidates may discover that frightening voters can be more effective than explaining complicated policies. It is becoming too common for all this to happen. This creates a troubling cycle.

Our nation has become more divided. There is a more profitable division, which has become a part of the political system and the media organizations. The more people are frightened, the more likely they may respond to messages promising protection from perceived enemies. The more we focus on hostility toward other Americans, the less attention we may devote to the policies which affect our lives. Consider what happens when a political campaign focuses primarily on convincing voters that people in another political party are dangerous.

Citizens begin to see one another through political labels. They may stop listening. They may assume that people with different political beliefs lack integrity or intelligence. They may become unwilling to consider influences that challenge their existence. Our country needs vigorous political discussion. We need to examine conflicting ideas, challenge public policy, hold leaders accountable because what we want to recognize is we want financial security. We want our children to receive a good education. We want safe communities and health care.

These common concerns provide opportunities for meaningful discussions. That’s the reason Nigel Lakey, a regular Republican, had our episode, Can We Still Talk? Finding Common Ground in a Divided America. Nigel and I hold different points of view. We do not attempt to conceal these differences. We speak our truth. We listen. We examine the evidence. We look for areas in which our values and concerns may overlap. We discover that meaningful conversation is possible even when substantial differences remain.

I believe our country needs more of these conversations. That is the reason I have chosen to emphasize Talarico’s approach. His campaign invites examination of whether political leadership can be grounded in moral responsibility, economic concerns, and communication across traditional divisions. I want to be clear. I believe Texans should examine his record, his policy proposals, and the leadership qualifications he demonstrates, but I do believe he is the best candidate. Ken Paxton certainly deserves serious scrutiny. Paxton has been involved in significant legal and ethical controversies, his political career.

Musk’s money must send all of us a message. How much Elon Musk is paying to try to get Ken Paxton to win is here’s a candidate that needs a billionaire to attempt to rescue him from his history and is trying to buy an election. The people of Texas, like any state, deserve public officials who demonstrate integrity. They deserve leaders who respect the Constitution, deserve responsible economic policies. They deserve representatives who understand that public offices exist to serve the people. Political leadership should not be measured only by the ability to defeat an opponent. It should also be measured by the ability to govern responsibly, to protect constitutional rights, to inspire citizens, and to protect our public life.

The Human Toll Of Political Polarization

The greatest leaders do more than win elections. They help people believe that a better future is possible and demonstrate how to work toward it. I believe that the behavior, beliefs, and Talarico’s campaign focus show Texans that they matter. Let’s show Musk that he cannot buy this election and choose James Talarico as our Senator. Now, the human consequences of living in a society characterized by political hostility certainly has cost all of us.

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of the polarization. I’m tired of people having the opportunity to make a lot of money and not make any effort for ordinary Americans. I also don’t like the fact that families have been affected, where family members cannot talk with each other because of the major political differences we have. It’s sad that children hear adults describing fellow Americans as enemies. I want you to consider these questions. What are we teaching the next generation? Are we teaching them how to think critically? Are we teaching them how to examine evidence? Are we teaching them to listen? Are we teaching them that political differences justify contempt?

I believe that one of the most important moral questions faces our country. I know that it requires emotional maturity. It requires the willingness to examine our assumptions. It requires the courage to remain engaged when conversations become difficult. I have spent most of my professional career helping people understand their behavior and develop more effective ways of communicating. One of the most important lessons from the work that I do is that meaningful change requires awareness.

 

A democracy depends on individuals who can participate in difficult conversations.

 

What I feel sad about is I am seeing a Republican Party that could care less about being aware. We must be aware of our own words and how they affect others. We must recognize when our emotional response interferes with listening. We must learn how to communicate our convictions without necessarily creating more conflict. This does not mean remaining silent in the presence of injustice. It means having a voice about injustice. It does not mean abandoning our values. It means recognizing that the manner in which we communicate can either strengthen or weaken our ability to create change.

A democracy depends on individuals who can participate in difficult conversations. It depends on people who can examine evidence. It depends on the willingness to continue working together when the disagreement remains unresolved. I want us to consider something. A country in which every political difference becomes a way to have a meaningful discussion and not have a personal attack. A country in which citizens distrust outside their political group. I want this stopped. A country in which fear replaces curiosity, a country in which political leaders benefit from keeping Americans permanently divided.

Shifting Political Patterns In Kansas And Beyond

Chaotic worlds are a way to keep us divided. That is not the future I want. I know that we can have something better, and I believe we have the responsibility to vote and show that we will choose something different. As we approach November 3rd, we will continue hearing predictions about the elections. I’ve already given you those possible predictions, but the competitive Senate race in Kansas also illustrates how political circumstances can become more complicated than historical voting patterns might suggest.

It’s not just Texas. It’s Kansas that has an opportunity to look at their historical voting patterns and vote for a Democrat that stands for real values, ethics, concepts, and a policy for his state that will help it grow and change. Texas provides one example, Kansas another. Even in states where one political party has maintained its substantial advantage, candidates may find opportunities to reach voters who are dissatisfied with the current conditions.

No election is decided until eligible voters cast their ballots, and those ballots are lawfully counted. Every citizen must understand the importance of remaining engaged. It takes courage. The influence of extraordinary wealth, the potential misuse of government authority, the economic insecurity, threats to democratic institutions, gerrymandering, and the emotional consequences of political division.

In our history, we have made major changes. The movement for women’s suffrage required generations of organizing. The civil rights movement required extraordinary courage. Efforts to expand educational opportunities, improve working conditions, and protect individual freedom required citizens like you and me willing to participate. These accomplishments These achievements and accomplishments were not inevitable. They resulted from human decision, people being organized, people speaking out, people challenging established practices, and people accepting personal risk as a part of their process. However, people resisted, and that’s what we can do.

Generational Responsibility For Our Democracy

Now, I want to take you through an image because it will give you the best way I can tell you what I’ve been talking about through this whole podcast. Imagine a child who is ten years old today. That child will become an adult in a country shaped by the decisions we make. That child will inherit the consequences of economic policies, the condition of democratic institutions, the protections provided by our legal system, the political culture we create through our words and actions.

Consider these questions. What kind of country do you want to leave this child to inherit it? A country whose wealth determines whose concerns receive attention, a country in which political leaders place personal interests above public responsibility, a country in which citizens are encouraged to fear and despise one another, or a country in which constitutional rights are protected, the government remains accountable, and people possess meaningful opportunities to build fulfilling lives.

We can influence the direction of our country. We can protect democratic institutions. We can decide to protect those we care about. We can demand honesty from public officials. We can support responsible economic policies. We can insist upon lawful elections. We can demonstrate that America has a different political belief that we can treat everyone with dignity, no matter who they are. To me, the future of America does not belong exclusively to presidents, billionaires, political parties, or a powerful institution. It belongs to the American people.

We are the people who will decide seriously about our constitutional rights. We are the people who will decide whether we participate in an election. We are the people who will challenge misinformation, and we are the people who will decide whether political division becomes a permanent condition of American life. Before November 3rd, identify one meaningful action you can take to strengthen our democracy, because I believe America can become a country in which our differences do not prevent us from recognizing our shared humanity.

I believe we can create a political culture that values truth over manipulation. I believe we can demand leadership that places public service above personal gain and I believe we can protect the constitutional principles that make representative government possible. We are responsible for our democracy. I want us to think about what we’re leaving for that child and for the future of many more. I want us to discover that we care. We are going to participate.

We are going to defend the Constitution. We seek the truth. We refuse to surrender our responsibility for the future of our country. Thank you for tuning in. May we continue to seek the truth, protect our constitutional freedom, honor the dignity of every human being, and work together to create an America worthy of the generations who will follow us. Democracy is something we simply do not inherit. It is something we must continually protect in every action we take. Thank you.

 

Important Links

• Can We Still Talk? Finding Common Ground in a Divided America – Previous Episode
• Applebaum, A. (2026, October 20). A new season of Autocracy in America. The Atlantic.
• Balz, D., & Clement, S. (2026, October 18). Trump approval hits record low, handing Democrats a clear midterm edge. The Washington Post.
• Colvin, J., & Sanders, L. (2026, October 1). Most Americans blame Trump for high prices as his economic approval hits new low, AP-NORC poll shows. The Associated Press.
• National Democratic Redistricting Committee. (2026, October). Everything you need to know about how Democrats will defeat Trump’s gerrymandering [Email newsletter].
• The New York Times. (2026, October 20). James Talarico on the rage economy, billionaires and flipping Texas [Podcast episode]. The Daily.
• The New York Times. (2026, October). Inside Elon Musk’s $276 million midterm rescue mission for Republicans [News article].
• The Washington Post. (2026, October 12). They came to Washington to dismantle government. Now, they’re profiting from it [News article].
• The Washington Post. (2026, October). U.S. officials privately advise states fearing Trump election meddling [News article].
• The Washington Post. (2026, October). Here’s what’s making the Kansas Senate race so competitive [Political newsletter].
• The Washington Post. (2026, October). The high courts that don’t get enough attention [News article].
• The Atlantic. (2026, October 15). The last word on inflation before the midterms [Newsletter].
• The New York Times. (2026, October). How to think big about affordability [Opinion newsletter].
• United States Supreme Court Decisions
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
• Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019).
• Additional Sources on Election Integrity and Democratic Participation
• The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (2026, October). Public opinion research on the 2026 midterm elections, economic conditions, and presidential approval.
• The Washington Post, ABC News, & Ipsos. (2026, October). Washington Post–ABC News–Ipsos national political poll.
• U.S. Election Assistance Commission. (n.d.). Election administration and voting resources.
• U.S. Government. (n.d.). Register to vote and find voting information.
• Federal Election Commission. (n.d.). Campaign finance data.