Harry Truman said that “there is nothing new in the world except the history that you do not know.” With that in mind, I am reluctant to suggest that the 2020 election will be different from any other. Nonetheless, at least three things will make the contest both unusual and a challenge to analyze in an unemotional, nonpartisan way.

In the wake of Covid-19, President Trump is ramping up his attacks on China. It looks like candidate Biden will not be outdone. Must China be an enemy? Or might we be displacing blame for our growing problems?

(837 words, four-minute read)

Opposition to companies buying back their stock has historically been a partisan issue. Both sides, however, agreed to prohibit companies that accepted stimulus money from doing so. How might independents think about this issue? The short answer is “it depends.” Here is why.

(755 words, three-minute read)

As the COVID-19 death toll rises, it is clear that several countries have handled the health crisis better than we have. Learning from our failure could be the silver lining of this crisis. But it won’t be easy.

(689 words, three-minute read)

The good news is that we will survive the COVID crisis. The bad news is that when we do, all the same challenges facing our country will be here. Is there a coherent way to think about the coming 2020 election debate? Here is a suggestion.

(623 words, three-minute read)

Criticism of corporations remains a staple of several of the Democratic candidates’ stump speeches. Could it be that the rise of corporate power in the US requires a regulatory response?

(743 words, three-minute read—contributed to by Alexis Chapman)

What may be the definitive Democratic primaries take place tomorrow across 14 states. As voting begins, how can we distill what really matters?

(353 words, one-minute read)

The utter vacuity of the modern media-as-entertainment complex was on full display during the last two debates in Nevada and South Carolina. This is no way to pick a dogcatcher, let alone a president.

(667 words, three-minute read)

After two years of tariffs and bellicose rhetoric, a revision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was recently agreed upon. What really happened?

(760 words, three-minute read)

Corporations are taking a beating in this election year. Depending on who you listen to, they don’t hire enough or pay enough taxes. They buy back too much stock, and they outsource too much. Do they do anything worth applauding?

(770 words, three-minute read)

Little to no legislative progress is being made on the major issues of our time. Are the radical factions of each party preventing progress? Do Americans care? Do we even have consensus on any of the issues?

Because the Democrats control only the House, evaluating their effectiveness is challenging. While introducing legislation is essential, doing so with no Republican support accomplishes little. Let’s see what has worked and what hasn’t.

Republicans have been in power in the White House and Senate continuously since 2017 and also controlled the House during 2017 and 2018. How should voters assess their progress in implementing their 2016 platform?

A common assertion this election season is that the system is “rigged” in favor of the rich. Upon a review, however, it appears that the system is rigged not just in favor of the rich, but in favor of any interest group with influence. Let’s try to be fact-based and rational and share what we found.

As the 2020 campaign for president matures, three of the four leading candidates routinely engage in pure and simple demagoguery. Once again, it looks like the more radical factions of the two parties may limit our choices. This is why the mission of OurFutureAmerica is important.

Democrats dueled vociferously on Tuesday night over healthcare. Three seemingly different positions were debated. But are the distinctions made in an effort to differentiate themselves meaningful, or are they in effect simple distinctions without a difference? Let’s try to be fact-based and rational. 

Let’s begin by reviewing each option as proffered by their various proponents.

The Democratic presidential candidates have vigorously criticized President Trump for his imposition of tariffs on China, arguing that they have unfairly hurt farmers, producers, and cost jobs. And yet, when asked specifically during the September 10 debate whether they would lift them “on day one,” they all ducked or said no. Specifically, Mayor Buttigieg said he would have “a strategy that includes the tariffs as leverage.” Why is free trade so hard to support? Let’s try to be fact-based and rational.

A common refrain of some of the presidential candidates is that the wealthy do not pay “their fair share” of taxes. While it is pretty clear that this means the wealthy should pay “more,” what isn’t clear is how much more would be considered “fair.” What is also not clear is whether the use of the word “fair” is in fact fair. Let’s try to be fact-based, rational, and fair.

What in fact does this question even mean? Is the “winner” the candidate who scores the most memorable “debate” points, who is quickest on their feet, or who creates the most repeatable sound bites? All of this would make for good television if the debates were a sporting event. But they aren’t. We should ask for more. Let’s try to be fact-based and rational.

Observations about the growing level of political polarization are frequent. Democratic candidates blame Trump for fueling the fire and pledge to unite the country. Others observe the growing divide between “red and blue states,” and the divisions over Supreme Court nominees, budget proposals, and the interpretation of the Mueller Report. Our own frustration with the absence of compromise in Washington is a significant motivation of OurFutureAmerica. But is it all true? Were there really ever any ”good old days” when Congress and the executive branch got along? Let’s try to be fact-based and rational.