Readers have less than one week to support this work by clicking the Midterm Special. $48 per year/FOREVER (Reg. $60)
So far, 18 people have taken advantage of this special (and more than 18 people have chosen to cancel or not renew for another month/year. So every upgrade also makes up some ground for two or three people who decide to belt-tighten or spend elsewhere. I’m not judging; everyone has a lot to carry.) Despite that deficit, I am slowly awarding annual paid subscriptions to those who cannot afford it when you upgrade.
In today’s installment of A Country for We the People, I have several discussion questions drawn from reader observations and feedback. They are issues I don’t know how to resolve and/or don’t want to interpret without more input.
Discussion Question 1: Should we have political parties? Or should they be outlawed?
Several readers have submitted the idea of outlawing political parties in different ways. I think all of them stem from frustrations and disgust with Citizens United, money in politics, and our system of constant fundraising/campaigning.
I have long been a fan of a system whereby we vote for candidates based upon their stated positions, garnered from public declarations as well as prior voting records and areas of financial and volunteer support. Every time I have done a blind ballot where I chose my preferred candidates based on their positions rather than their names/personas, I was surprised by the result. It caused me to really think about my own values, and it helped further my deconstruction to arrive at the progressive stances I hold today.
I also think making the focus of our politics one’s positions and subsequent record championing them might diminish the importance of superficial qualities like physical appearance, public speaking ability, charisma, screen and stage presence, and similar, which are all places narcissists tend to shape-shift and excel.
Which leads me to my second conundrum for discussion.
Discussion Question 2: What does free speech really mean?
I believe in free speech and expression. I think people should have the right to hold, state, and even argue for positions that are opposite mine, even when they offend me. Part of living in a free society means living alongside people with whom we do not agree and giving those people the grace to hold those positions even when I find them repugnant or vile.
But how does that work when a person is lying? Does free speech and expression cover lies that are dangerous or deadly to others?
I equate Fox News and its associated cancer of dis-and-misinformation systems with people who run into crowded spaces and yell, “Fire!” when there is no fire. (Which is not protected free speech; it is a crime to endanger people in this manner.) While I think a person should have the right to refuse to put a vaccine in their body, I don’t believe people should have the right to lie about them and convince people who would otherwise choose vaccination to refrain, thus endangering them and those around them.
If we create stiff penalties for spreading mis-and-disinformation, lying in ways that endanger groups of people or the whole of society, and doxxing and threatening human beings, as well as making tech companies responsible for the information spread on their platforms, how would that impact free speech and expression? Would we still have it?
This would also look back to Discussion Question 1. If political candidates are meaningfully punished for lying about their positions, experience, finances, and connections, could we abolish political parties in favor of position-oriented voting?
I don’t know how to answer.
Discussion Question 3: How do we regulate Big Tech?
Because our existing elected representatives have no idea how to do it. And allowing these AI people to buy our politicians for endless AI corporate welfare is going to decimate us. Not to mention what has already been destroyed because of social media manipulation.
We have a few people in Congress who kind-of/sort-of grasp what these tools are, but most of them are clueless, overwhelmed by other aspects of their jobs, and cannot be taught.
Looking to how the EU regulates data and Big Tech is a good place to start, though they don’t go far enough in my opinion.
I personally believe private citizens and companies should not be allowed to own these kinds of systems and operate them as opaque black boxes. Algorithms should be public. Their means of data collection should be public. Everything they track and keep on users should be public.
I also believe we should be compensated for everything they stole from us, but I’d settle for wresting them from the for-profit sphere and regulating them like nuclear weapons. Because we could argue that bad information is like nuclear fallout; over time, it will destroy most of us as it destroys the planet.
Part of building the country and the world we want means making sure the next time we have an advance like AI, we are ready with systems to explore its potential while regulating growth and preventing harms it could wreak.
I have more, but three deep questions is enough for one day. Please discuss in the comments. I have different takes on all of these depending on the day. Agree. Disagree. Propose something else. There are no right or wrong answers.
ANNOUNCEMENT!
I am appearing on another Big Tent USA livestream panel!
Monday. 7 December 2026. Noon eastern.
The conversation is on Pro-Natalism and will explore current policies aimed at encouraging people to have more children, and how these initiatives connect to broader efforts to restrict women’s autonomy and reinforce traditional gender roles.
I’m speaking alongside Varina Winder, co-founder of the Arch Collaborative and former Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff in the Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues at the Department of State.
I will cover the White Christian Nationalism of it all, obviously.
Please mark your calendars. I’ll share links for this event as soon as they’re live.
