Category: The American Spectator
While Humans Were Tuning Their Guitars — AI Created America’s No. 1 Country Song
It’s another milestone in the onward march of the bots — country music’s top song in the U.S. last week…
Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base
Washington’s latest fights make one thing unmistakable: Democrats shift their arguments as needed, but always in service of higher taxes, higher spending, and a bigger federal footprint. When the question earlier this year was whether to keep current tax policy and avoid a massive tax hike, Democrats fought against keeping current policy.
Now, after forcing a government shutdown, they claim they must preserve current — but temporary — Obamacare subsidies. Two opposite stances, one consistent goal: bigger government.
On taxes, ‘current policy’ doesn’t count. On spending, ‘current policy’ functions like holy writ.
Earlier this year, Congress faced a hard deadline. Lawmakers had to choose between extending the 2017 American Job Creation Act tax rates or letting them snap back to pre-2017 levels — a $4 trillion tax increase across income brackets. Republicans pushed to retain the lower rates. Democrats pushed for the tax hike.
Democrats insisted the looming deadline was Republicans’ fault and said the surge in revenue would help slow growth in deficits and debt. Republicans ultimately prevailed and passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Democrats erupted.
We all know what happened next. Less than three months later, Congress approached the September 30 deadline for annual appropriations. With negotiations still incomplete, Republicans advanced a clean, short-term extension to keep the government open. The House passed it. President Trump signaled he would sign it. Senate Democrats filibustered it.
Republicans tried over a dozen times to reopen the government. Senate Democrats blocked them every time — until this week. Their central demand: extend the temporary “emergency” premium subsidies that Democrats expanded during the pandemic. Those subsidies, scheduled to expire, broadened eligibility beyond 400% of the federal poverty line and boosted benefits for those below it. Democrats already extended them once through 2025.
Now, with the pandemic long over — President Biden signed the resolution ending it on April 10, 2023 — Senate Democrats want the emergency expansions made permanent.
The inconsistency could not be clearer.
When expiring tax law meant taxes would rise, Democrats described preventing that increase as a tax cut — even though extending the law simply kept existing policy in place. The fact that the policy had been the law for eight years meant nothing.
But when expiring pandemic-era subsidies would return Obamacare to its original structure, Democrats suddenly insist that current policy must prevail. They now treat temporary emergency expansions — linked explicitly to COVID, extended once already, disproportionately benefiting upper-income households — as untouchable programs that must become permanent.
On taxes, “current policy” doesn’t count. On spending, “current policy” functions like holy writ.
RELATED: Trump officially ends ‘pathetic’ Democrats’ record-breaking shutdown
Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The reasoning shifts, but the outcome never does: Democrats always land on whatever argument leads to more government. Their broader shutdown demands confirm it — ending Medicaid reforms and restoring spending levels President Trump and Republicans reduced. Every item points in the same direction: more federal dollars out the door.
Democrats note that Republicans, too, support keeping some expiring policies. True. Which makes the underlying purpose even more important to identify.
Republicans fought to maintain 2017 tax levels so Americans could keep more of what they earn — and keep that income out of Washington’s hands. Democrats want permanent expansion of Obamacare subsidies to preserve and grow benefits for people who were never intended to receive them, locking in a larger federal role.
Future fights will come; today’s climate guarantees them. One more thing is just as guaranteed: Democrats’ arguments will continue to change as needed, and their demands for higher taxes, higher spending, and a larger federal government will not.
Courage Under Fire
First came the water pouring down the slopes of Japan’s Mount Fuji on October 19, 1979. Then on top of the torrents came the fire that killed 13 U.S. Marines and burned dozens more. Though investigators afterward may not have consulted the Bible, they ended up attributing the unusual mix of elements involved to the same force that, per the Book of Exodus, enveloped ancient Egypt in hail and fire. “It was an act of God,” investigators concluded.
The post Courage Under Fire appeared first on .
Today’s Teens: The Generation We’ve Totally Annoyed
One of the great thrills of adolescence is that you start liking girls. And they, in turn, like boys. But…
Conservative Principles Lost in Tech Regulation
Consequences unintended, though not unforeseen, lurk within many of the most popular proposals in technology policy. In their haste to…
The Price of Democrats’ Extremism
In less than a week, Democrats went from elation’s heights to dejection’s depths. On Nov. 4, Democrats celebrated gubernatorial wins…
‘SCORE’-ing a Win
There has never been a better time to be a college sports fan. The expanded college football playoff system means…
A Defining Search: Penn State’s Hunt for a New Coach
Despite a positive 12-year run at Penn State, James Franklin ultimately fell short of delivering what defines college football’s elite…
America’s best and worst states for religious freedom — and what it means for our future
Now is a good time for religion in America.
President Trump has established the White House Religious Liberty Commission, led by a diverse group of religious leaders and scholars, including Mary Margaret Bush, Napa Legal’s own former executive director. The commission is identifying some of the nation’s most pressing religious liberty issues and developing plans for action.
Lawmakers should take advantage of the moment to enact durable protections that will outlast any administration.
The U.S. Supreme Court, too, has protected religious liberty in several crucial cases. In Carson v. Makin (2022), the court held that it is unconstitutional to exclude religious schools from generally available government funding programs. In Kennedy v. Bremerton, it found that coach Joseph Kennedy’s postgame prayers did not violate the First Amendment. This year brought additional victories in Mahmoud v. Taylor, where the court upheld parents’ rights to opt their children out of LGBT content in elementary school classes, and Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, where a unanimous court prevented state officials from favoring some religions over others.
These encouraging developments might tempt Americans to believe that the battle for nationwide religious freedom has already been won.
Yet even with such powerful forces defending religious liberty at the federal level, state laws affecting religious organizations remain critical for ensuring that everyday Americans do not suffer persecution for their firmly held religious beliefs.
Consider what just happened in Washington state.
In 2025, Catholic priests there faced an impossible choice between obeying their faith and complying with state law. A new Washington state statute required clergy to report instances of abuse or neglect they heard during confession, despite the Church’s centuries-old sacramental seal. The law singled out priests while giving others, like lawyers, a pass, and it carried the threat of jail time and fines.
Thankfully, a federal court blocked the law before it could take effect, ruling in Etienne v. Ferguson that the state could not force clergy to violate the sacred seal of confession.
But that case never should have been necessary. Washington’s law reflected the same pattern Napa Legal’s research has uncovered repeatedly: When state laws are weak or hostile to faith-based organizations, those organizations are left vulnerable even when the federal government and Supreme Court appear friendly to religion.
This month, the Napa Legal Institute released the third edition of the Faith and Freedom Index, an analysis of state laws across the country that either help or hinder religious organizations. Whether national politics seem to favor or oppose religious liberty, state laws remain central to its long-term health.
The states with the top overall scores were:
- Alabama
- Kansas
- Indiana
- Texas
- Mississippi
The five lowest scores went to:
- Michigan
- Washington
- Massachusetts
- West Virginia
- Maryland
What distinguishes the states at the top of the list from those at the bottom? Several types of laws come into play. For example, the index’s highest performing states have built frameworks that proactively safeguard religious organizations. Their laws provide broad protections for religious exercise and create environments where ministries can thrive.
By contrast, it’s no coincidence that Washington state ranks near the bottom. The same state that passed one of the most intrusive laws in recent memory also reflects on the Index a legal system that makes it far too easy for governments to intrude on matters of faith.
That is why it is important to strike while the iron is hot. When the federal government is friendly to religious liberty, that is precisely the time to act. Political conditions can change quickly, but good laws endure. Lawmakers should take advantage of the moment to enact durable protections that will outlast any administration.
RELATED: Why Trump’s religious liberty agenda terrifies the left
SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images
There are many reasons why state laws remain decisive. First, state statutes can still contradict clear federal precedent. After the Supreme Court struck down Wisconsin’s discriminatory law in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, a similar law remained in effect in New York. Religious organizations there had to continue the litigation even after the Supreme Court had essentially decided the issue.
It is also not enough for states to rely solely on constitutional protections or a Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
These safeguards are vital but not sufficient. When a religious organization’s hiring or service conflicts with state “nondiscrimination” laws, it should not have to spend years in court to prove its right to operate according to its beliefs. States can and should pass clear exemptions that prevent such conflicts from ever arising.
Finally, state tax and regulatory codes can have a major impact on whether faith-based organizations thrive. Many religious nonprofits are treated like for-profit corporations, subject to tax regimes and administrative filings, fees, and audits that make it hard for them to operate. States should look closely at such laws and remove unnecessary burdens that divert precious time and resources away from ministry and service.
No matter who sits in the White House or on the Supreme Court, state laws remain a foundation of religious liberty. The Faith and Freedom Index remains an important tool to protect and foster the work of religious organizations and religious liberty in general.
Voters should consider how laws in their states burden religion when they cast their votes. Policymakers should pay close attention to laws that may seem tedious but can make or break the needed work of religious organizations. And our government leaders should work to enact laws that foster religious liberty, so that religion can serve its proper role in contributing to the common good.
Young, broke, and voting blue: 2025’s harsh lesson for the right
In 1992, a young Democratic strategist on the Clinton campaign named James Carville coined the now-famous phrase “it’s the economy, stupid.” He directed it to the campaign workers to ensure that they remained laser-focused on kitchen-table issues. In November’s elections, voters delivered that same message, loud and clear, in New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey. The results were not surprising — even the margins were roughly in line with 2017, the last off-year elections in those localities when Trump was president.
The message was clear: Many young voters are hurting economically. Of course, the Trump administration is well aware of this. The government has been digging out of the economic disaster Joe Biden left behind. Compared to Europe and much of Asia, the U.S. is doing better, but the global macro environment is still challenging — especially for young people.
Once again and as ever: ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’
This is why almost immediately after the election, the administration focused on ramping up its communication efforts on the economy. President Trump indicated an urgent need to blow up the filibuster and enact a legislative agenda commensurate with the issues young voters are facing. Trump’s approach was echoed by Vice President JD Vance, who noted, “We’re going to keep working to make a decent life affordable in this country, and that’s the metric by which we’ll ultimately be judged in 2026 and beyond.”
It is useful to do a deep dive into the 2025 election data so that we can learn what happened and how we can be ready with the right political and policy prescriptions to win the much more important midterm elections in 2026.
A coalition of the ‘falling behind’
Contrary to the thinking of most political commentators, Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York City mayoral race wasn’t about racial identity politics. I’m not saying he doesn’t believe in racial identity politics. It’s quite central to his worldview. After all, this is the guy who tweeted in 2020 that “Black + brown solidarity will overcome white supremacy.” Mamdani’s anti-Israel activities have also been well known and much remarked upon. But that’s not what led his coalition to victory on Nov. 4.
First, Mamdani’s campaign was fundamentally a youth movement. Young women ages 18-29, while a relatively small part of the electorate, gave him 81% of their support. These are staggering numbers. Overall, Mamdani won younger voters under 45 by an incredible 69%-25%, while former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) won voters over 45 by 51%-39%. Just as importantly, Mamdani actually won white voters by one point. He certainly did well with Muslims and in the South Asian community.
It’s possible that Mamdani may in fact be a Third-Worldist or Muslim supremacist, as some have alleged — but these were peripheral issues in electing him, and a look at his coalition suggests that focusing on them would fracture it.
Likewise, feelings about Israel were overblown. While it was a “major factor” in 38% of voters’ minds, it was essentially a political wash, with Mamdani losing 47%-46% among those who felt passionately about the issue. While Israel may be personally important for him, it was not a driving issue for most of his voters.
Mamdani’s coalition is spiritually and geographically rootless. While he did strongly among Muslims (presumably a significant chunk of the 14% of voters of “other religions” that he took 70% of), far more powerful was the 75% he took among the 24% of voters who claimed no religion. For those who have made politics their god, Mamdani is a comforting idol and socialism a powerful liturgy.
RELATED: Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
His is also a coalition of the mobile, anchored by those with shallow roots in New York — and, one might suspect, America. Mamdani dominated among newer arrivals, winning a staggering 82% among those who have lived in New York City for less than 10 years. Cuomo, meanwhile, carried the NYC-born 50%-38%, but that group comprised just 45% of the electorate. Likewise, Mamdani racked up a 59%-34% margin among renters.
The fundamental point that anchored Mamdani’s coalition was the economy: 25% of voters described themselves as democratic socialists, and he won 86% of them. And many appear to have been motivated by jealousy or frustration. He actually won 59% among those who thought the NYC economy was good, but also 59%-34% among those who felt they were personally falling behind. If you were among the one-third of voters who looked around and saw everyone else getting ahead but you, Mamdani was your candidate.
Fifty-six percent of voters said the cost of living was the most critical issue, and Mamdani won 66% of them. If he had only won these voters, Mamdani still would have come within a few percentage points of beating Cuomo (41%-37%). This is an essential message for the GOP to internalize if it wants to win back these voters at the 2026 midterms.
Of the 34% of voters who supported raising taxes, an incredible 86% were for Mamdani. But his coalition is not a working-class coalition. White voters with a degree supported Mamdani 57%-40%, while he took just 26% of white voters without a degree — a group that would have comprised eight out of ten voters in 1950 but just 14% today. Nor was it truly a coalition of the financial elite: Cuomo won 62%-33% among families earning over $300,000 per year.
Kitchen-table issues, again
While the circumstances in New York City were somewhat unique, the story in Virginia was more typical. There was a huge gender gap — which is really a marriage gap — though unfortunately, we have only the gender breakdown since pollsters, for whatever reason, didn’t ask about marital status, despite its enormous effect on women’s votes in particular. Republican Winsome Earle-Sears actually won men 51%-38%, but Abigail Spanberger crushed her among women, 65%-35%. If gender gap patterns here are similar to 2024, Spanberger took approximately 72% of single women’s votes.
Also notable is the incredible failure of tokenistic identity politics to appeal to left-wing identity groups. Earle-Sears, a black woman, took just 7% of the black vote — and, incredibly, just 3% of black women’s votes. Meanwhile, she took 61% of white men’s votes, even while losing by 14.5 points overall.
The lesson for the GOP is simple: Voters want tangible results on immigration, jobs, and affordability.
Spanberger was similarly dominant among youth, winning the under-45 vote 65%-34%, as opposed to a much narrower 53%-47% margin among the 45-and-over crowd. Similarly, we see how much the Democrats have become the party of the elite, with Spanberger winning 68%-32% among those with advanced degrees. Earle-Sears, meanwhile, won 2-1 among the one-third of Virginia voters who are white and do not have college degrees and 80% of white born-again Christians, who made up 28% of the voters.
Earle-Sears won 61%-37% among the 37% who are not affected financially by the shutdowns, while the 20% who are affected went for Spanberger 82%-18%. If you look at those Virginia voters who are only a little or not at all financially affected by federal cuts, Spanberger eked out only the narrowest victory over Earle-Sears. Almost her entire positive margin came from those 20% of voters who are substantially financially affected by federal job cuts. This illustrates in dramatic fashion how much Virginia has become a company town for the federal government, with politics that reflect that fact.
By a 58%-40% margin, Virginians said that the economy was good, but Spanberger won among the 23% who felt they were falling behind, by a 76%-24% margin. Again, we see that those who are unhappy with their place in the current economy went overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
Spanberger also won on kitchen-table issues. Among the 48% who felt the economy was the most important issue, she won 63% to 36%. And among the 21% who said health care was the most important issue, she won an incredible 81% to 18%.
By contrast, Earle-Sears had only a narrow advantage (50%-47%) on the transgender issue despite having made men in women’s or girls’ bathrooms and similar matters a centerpiece of her campaign. While it’s very likely that particular issue had a larger gap when related to men in women’s locker rooms than transgenderism as a whole, as insane as transgenderism is to most Republicans, it does not trump the economy for most swing voters.
RELATED: Accountability or bust: Trump’s second term test
Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Carville’s maxim
In New Jersey, once again, we saw economic anxieties come to the fore. Like New York, most people in the Garden State said the economy was not good. But they did not blame the extended period of Democrat governance, including a two-term Democrat governor. Instead, they blamed the Republicans who have been in power for less than a year. Indeed, among the 24% of voters who felt they were economically falling behind, they went 69%-31% for Democrat Mikie Sherrill.
GOP candidate Jack Ciattarelli barely won white voters, 52%-47%, while 68% of Latinos and 82% of Asian Americans voted for Sherrill. For both Spanberger and Sherrill, the Democrats were gifted with almost ideal candidates — experienced, elected congresswomen — given their potential coalition: relatively moderate, affluent white women who could deliver enough red meat to their minority base to turn out most of them while feeling very safe for moderate white suburbanites. Notably, both Sherrill, a Naval Academy graduate and veteran, and Spanberger, a former CIA officer, are married suburban moms, which makes it hard for your average independent voter to portray them as unpatriotic.
One encouraging point was that these results may say less about Republicans and Democrats than one might think. Among a much more Democrat-skewed electorate than in 2024, party favorability for the GOP in New Jersey was only five points under water (46%-51%), while the Democrats (49%-48%) were barely viewed favorably. But a staggering 23% of those with a somewhat favorable view of the Republican Party voted for Sherrill, speaking to her ability to win independent voters.
The GOP retained some gains it made among Hispanic voters in 2024, but overall, 18% of Hispanic voters who voted GOP in 2024 switched to the Democrats in this election. This still represented a significant gain in Hispanic votes for the GOP compared to the last governor’s race in 2021, but it was not enough to keep the race close.
A silver lining
One bright spot from the exit polls after a tough evening for the GOP is that immigration remains a solid issue for Republicans, even with Democrat intransigence. The Trump administration’s aggressive actions haven’t soured voters. Winsome Earle-Sears won 88% among those who considered immigration the most critical issue in Virginia (unfortunately, only 11% of the electorate). Jack Ciattarelli won 72% among voters who cared most about immigration (but again, just 7%).
The economy is the dominant issue, which is why it’s essential to spend more time talking about deporting illegal aliens as a kitchen-table issue that frees up jobs and housing for citizens, while reducing the tax burden on social services.
In each of these constituencies — New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey — Trump’s immigration policies were more opposed than supported. But these are all liberal constituencies in a Democrat wave election. If Trump’s policies polled this well among these constituencies during this election, they still retain solid popular support nationwide.
In New Jersey, 47% said the next governor should cooperate with the president on immigration, versus 49% who said she should not, a virtual tie in a state where the GOP gubernatorial candidate lost by 13 points. By a 15-point margin, Virginians opposed Trump’s immigration policies, identical to the gap in the governor’s race. Even in NYC, 34% of voters wanted the city to cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration enforcement, versus 61% opposed. That 34% number is several points higher than the 30% Trump won in the city in 2024, which represented the highest vote total for a GOP candidate in NYC since 1988.
The lesson for the GOP is simple: Voters want tangible results on immigration, jobs, and affordability. Recent polling suggests that these are the top three issues for 60% of low-propensity voters. If the GOP delivers on these points, it can have a great 2026 midterm election. If not, 2026 will look a lot like 2025.
Once again and as ever: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.
