I would like to send you an outline of a Political Project I’ve been working on for several months that addresses "A Broad Progressive Platform For 2026 and 2028", that I believe, given our current bifurcated population, the 2026/2028 project would be favorably looked upon by a significant portion of the American population.
It was largely prompted/guided when I learned of the "National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR)" that Al Gore worked on while Vice President. Sound Familiar??? Except “The “NPR” was Ethical, Logical and HONEST IN ITS GOALS!
I believe a 'Renewed NPR Effort Like Program' could bring about “The/A Rebirth Of THE/AN ‘AMERICAN 21ST Century” and the beginning of “The Next/New Generation Of Open, Fair And Progressive US Government”!!
Synopsis Follows - "Proposal: "Independent National Strategy Agency (INSA)".
Objective: Establish a nonpartisan, multidisciplinary agency to oversee and guide national strategy across key sectors—military, education, health, transportation, energy, technology AND TAXATION AND SPENDING—ensuring optimized, evidence-based, and economically sound decision-making.
Key Features:
Mandatory Participation: Private corporations and governmental agencies contribute research, data, and expertise to ensure a holistic approach to national planning.
Independent Oversight: Free from political and corporate influence, with safeguards ensuring impartiality in decision-making.
Expert-Led Decision Making: Comprised of scientists, economists, military strategists, engineers, technologists, and social policy experts, guaranteeing that national priorities are shaped by those with specialized knowledge.
Long-Term Planning vs. Short-Term Political Cycles: Focuses on decades-long sustainability and efficiency, avoiding reactionary policymaking driven by election cycles or corporate lobbying.
Efficient Allocation of Resources: Reduces wasteful spending by ensuring that national investments serve actual strategic needs rather than political or corporate interests.
Rationale: The U.S. faces increasing global and domestic challenges that demand foresight, innovation, and unity across sectors. Current processes often favor short-term, politically motivated decisions rather than strategic, long-term national growth. INSA would provide unbiased, science-driven leadership, eliminating inefficiencies and ensuring economic, military, and social stability through proactive planning.
Expected Benefits:
✅ Reduced bureaucratic and TAXATION AND SPENDING inefficiencies. ✅ Stronger technological and economic leadership in global markets. ✅ Enhanced defense strategies with forward-looking military innovation (e.g., drones vs. traditional systems).
✅ Optimized energy policies for sustainability and national independence. ✅ Improved education and workforce development, ensuring long-term economic strength.
(This proposal could spark real discussion among policymakers, industry leaders, and academics.)
Chuck, I don’t want to burst your bubble but we are stuck with the two party system not only because of your pointing out that ballot access in the 50 states is based on the two parties but because if an idea becomes popular enough it will be confiscated by one of the two dominate parties. We have seen this occur again and again. Remember the American Party of 1968 where the great George Wallace campaigned for President. Likewise more recently we had Ross Perot in 1992. Chuck parties evolve, the Democrats of today are not the party of the great senators of the 1950’s and 1960’s that dominated southern politics and the Senate. Just like the Republican Party are not the party of the great Senators from New England when it was a reliable Republican region. Today’s Democratic Party is evolving into a party of Socialists Marxist, we will just have to see where it goes.
What a wonderful debut post, Chuck! I agree. 2025 seems like the year the Democrats may collapse. They are failing to meet the moment in so many ways. They have no real leaders. The little bit of energy the party does have should read the room and move on.
People are fed up. Astute liberal leaders, from AOC and Bernie Sanders on the left to Mayor Pete and Corrie Booker in the center, could start something incredible if they act in time for the midterms. But that means planting the seed soon... like, by this summer.
As for the Republicans... I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon. But some of their voters might, if given an alternative with a pro-democracy, common sense, anti-oligarch message that truly meets the moment. Time will tell.
Excellent analysis, Chuck, but I would argue that the federalist nature of American democracy makes it much harder for new parties to establish themselves than in almost any other western democracy on earth. They have to navigate intricate ballot access rules that very wildly by state, be competitive in state legislative, gubernatorial, Congressional, and Presidential elections, and find new issues and a new candidate around whom to coalesce. It’s much more likely that one of the two established major parties will wildly pivot (as the Republicans already have, to a certain extent, under Trump) than that a new party will emerge and actually gain traction. There’s a reason why the Whigs were the last time it happened, and it’s not for lack of trying - there’ve been a number of serious efforts to get a third party established nationally over the decades.
You're right, Jim. But the Democrat brand is so utterly toxic and unpopular right now that a collapse could happen. If something new comes along that rises quickly, the momentum could pull in the hold-outs. In my mind, it's more possible now than it ever has been before in my lifetime.
This is an example of the polls on branding not reflecting results on the ground. Yes, Kamala Harris ran a terrible campaign and lost, but the Democratic Party did not collapse - and Trump did not win by a landslide by any stretch of the imagine, no matter how often he claims it. In the popular vote vanity contest, he got 2 million more votes, but still not a pure majority. Democrats still have full control in thirteen states, they have 23 governors, the Republican majority in the House is the smallest House majority in my lifetime, and Trump’s approval numbers aren’t great.
For comparison, after the last real landslide election in 1996 when Bill Clinton handily won over Bob Dole - the largest advantage in both the electoral and popular vote in a presidential election since 1984 - Republicans were just fine. They’d go on to win back the presidency four years later; it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Democrats won in 2028.
Moreover, there’s no serious effort to establish a third party nationally even happening right now. Even a billionaire like Elon Musk would need years to get it going.
Finally, no matter how badly polls say people dislike the party itself, candidates run against other people - not the party. As Joe Biden always said, voters ought to judge candidates against the alternative, not the almighty, and that will surely happen in 2026 and in 2028. There will be no viable third party or independent option available in those years in either the presidential election or most major federal or statewide elections.
I would like to send you an outline of a Political Project I’ve been working on for several months that addresses "A Broad Progressive Platform For 2026 and 2028", that I believe, given our current bifurcated population, the 2026/2028 project would be favorably looked upon by a significant portion of the American population.
It was largely prompted/guided when I learned of the "National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR)" that Al Gore worked on while Vice President. Sound Familiar??? Except “The “NPR” was Ethical, Logical and HONEST IN ITS GOALS!
I believe a 'Renewed NPR Effort Like Program' could bring about “The/A Rebirth Of THE/AN ‘AMERICAN 21ST Century” and the beginning of “The Next/New Generation Of Open, Fair And Progressive US Government”!!
Synopsis Follows - "Proposal: "Independent National Strategy Agency (INSA)".
Objective: Establish a nonpartisan, multidisciplinary agency to oversee and guide national strategy across key sectors—military, education, health, transportation, energy, technology AND TAXATION AND SPENDING—ensuring optimized, evidence-based, and economically sound decision-making.
Key Features:
Mandatory Participation: Private corporations and governmental agencies contribute research, data, and expertise to ensure a holistic approach to national planning.
Independent Oversight: Free from political and corporate influence, with safeguards ensuring impartiality in decision-making.
Expert-Led Decision Making: Comprised of scientists, economists, military strategists, engineers, technologists, and social policy experts, guaranteeing that national priorities are shaped by those with specialized knowledge.
Long-Term Planning vs. Short-Term Political Cycles: Focuses on decades-long sustainability and efficiency, avoiding reactionary policymaking driven by election cycles or corporate lobbying.
Efficient Allocation of Resources: Reduces wasteful spending by ensuring that national investments serve actual strategic needs rather than political or corporate interests.
Rationale: The U.S. faces increasing global and domestic challenges that demand foresight, innovation, and unity across sectors. Current processes often favor short-term, politically motivated decisions rather than strategic, long-term national growth. INSA would provide unbiased, science-driven leadership, eliminating inefficiencies and ensuring economic, military, and social stability through proactive planning.
Expected Benefits:
✅ Reduced bureaucratic and TAXATION AND SPENDING inefficiencies. ✅ Stronger technological and economic leadership in global markets. ✅ Enhanced defense strategies with forward-looking military innovation (e.g., drones vs. traditional systems).
✅ Optimized energy policies for sustainability and national independence. ✅ Improved education and workforce development, ensuring long-term economic strength.
(This proposal could spark real discussion among policymakers, industry leaders, and academics.)
I anxiously await your thoughts.
Best Regards
Jim Challender
5004 Arbor Chase Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27616
Cell 954-551-9200
Email JimChallender@Hotmail.com
Chuck, I don’t want to burst your bubble but we are stuck with the two party system not only because of your pointing out that ballot access in the 50 states is based on the two parties but because if an idea becomes popular enough it will be confiscated by one of the two dominate parties. We have seen this occur again and again. Remember the American Party of 1968 where the great George Wallace campaigned for President. Likewise more recently we had Ross Perot in 1992. Chuck parties evolve, the Democrats of today are not the party of the great senators of the 1950’s and 1960’s that dominated southern politics and the Senate. Just like the Republican Party are not the party of the great Senators from New England when it was a reliable Republican region. Today’s Democratic Party is evolving into a party of Socialists Marxist, we will just have to see where it goes.
What a wonderful debut post, Chuck! I agree. 2025 seems like the year the Democrats may collapse. They are failing to meet the moment in so many ways. They have no real leaders. The little bit of energy the party does have should read the room and move on.
People are fed up. Astute liberal leaders, from AOC and Bernie Sanders on the left to Mayor Pete and Corrie Booker in the center, could start something incredible if they act in time for the midterms. But that means planting the seed soon... like, by this summer.
As for the Republicans... I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon. But some of their voters might, if given an alternative with a pro-democracy, common sense, anti-oligarch message that truly meets the moment. Time will tell.
Excellent analysis, Chuck, but I would argue that the federalist nature of American democracy makes it much harder for new parties to establish themselves than in almost any other western democracy on earth. They have to navigate intricate ballot access rules that very wildly by state, be competitive in state legislative, gubernatorial, Congressional, and Presidential elections, and find new issues and a new candidate around whom to coalesce. It’s much more likely that one of the two established major parties will wildly pivot (as the Republicans already have, to a certain extent, under Trump) than that a new party will emerge and actually gain traction. There’s a reason why the Whigs were the last time it happened, and it’s not for lack of trying - there’ve been a number of serious efforts to get a third party established nationally over the decades.
You're right, Jim. But the Democrat brand is so utterly toxic and unpopular right now that a collapse could happen. If something new comes along that rises quickly, the momentum could pull in the hold-outs. In my mind, it's more possible now than it ever has been before in my lifetime.
This is an example of the polls on branding not reflecting results on the ground. Yes, Kamala Harris ran a terrible campaign and lost, but the Democratic Party did not collapse - and Trump did not win by a landslide by any stretch of the imagine, no matter how often he claims it. In the popular vote vanity contest, he got 2 million more votes, but still not a pure majority. Democrats still have full control in thirteen states, they have 23 governors, the Republican majority in the House is the smallest House majority in my lifetime, and Trump’s approval numbers aren’t great.
For comparison, after the last real landslide election in 1996 when Bill Clinton handily won over Bob Dole - the largest advantage in both the electoral and popular vote in a presidential election since 1984 - Republicans were just fine. They’d go on to win back the presidency four years later; it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Democrats won in 2028.
Moreover, there’s no serious effort to establish a third party nationally even happening right now. Even a billionaire like Elon Musk would need years to get it going.
Finally, no matter how badly polls say people dislike the party itself, candidates run against other people - not the party. As Joe Biden always said, voters ought to judge candidates against the alternative, not the almighty, and that will surely happen in 2026 and in 2028. There will be no viable third party or independent option available in those years in either the presidential election or most major federal or statewide elections.