The midterm elections are already upon us, and every Democrat and independent running against a Republican should ask voters the question Ronald Reagan asked on 28 October 1980, at the end of his televised debate against Jimmy Carter: “Are you better off now than you were before this presidency?”

Unless you’re very, very rich, the answer is obviously: “No, I’m worse off.”

Energy bills have increased three times faster than the rate of inflation while Trump has been president. The national average monthly utility bill reached $280 in early 2026, a 12% increase since the end of 2024, just before the second Trump administration took office.

Continue reading…

New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently borrowed the phrase from New York City Councilman Chi Ossé to describe the politics of 2020. “Woke 1” gives Democrats a convenient way to put ideas such as defunding the police and abolishing prisons in the past. That was then. This is now. There’s a psychological term for this kind of separation: compartmentalization.

Consider how compartmentalization works in ordinary life. A married man can have a wife and children at home and a girlfriend on the side, keeping the two lives separate enough that he rarely confronts the contradiction. Compartmentalization allows us to separate conflicting parts of our lives rather than reconcile them.

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ SHRUGS OFF PAST ‘DEFUND THE POLICE’ COMMENTS, JOKING ‘WOKE 1 WAS CRAZY’

That appears to be what Democrats are trying to do with 2020. There is the Democratic Party of 2020, when progressive ideas that once sat outside the mainstream suddenly gained influence. Then there is the Democratic Party of 2026, talking about affordability, economic populism and winning back voters who recoiled from the cultural politics of the past several years. “Woke 1” puts a neat dividing line between them. Changing your mind requires confronting what you once believed. Compartmentalization doesn’t.

Many political beliefs in 2020 became tests of character. They didn’t just say what you believed. They said what kind of person you were. If people you dismissed six years ago turned out to have a point, you have more to reconsider than a policy. Maybe you were too certain. Maybe you mistook disagreement for prejudice.

MICHIGAN SENATE HOPEFUL ABDUL EL-SAYED FIRES BACK AT CNN CHOOSING TO ‘FIXATE’ ON ‘DEFUND THE POLICE’ COMMENTS

Or you can call the whole thing Woke 1.

Except 2020 didn’t simply happen to the Democratic Party. Politicians embraced ideas, activists pushed them, and institutions decided which arguments deserved a hearing and which could be dismissed. People who challenged the prevailing views sometimes paid a price for it. Calling all of this “Woke 1” makes those choices sound like the product of a strange moment everyone has since outgrown.

AOC’S ATTEMPT TO DISMISS ‘WOKE 1’ AS ‘CRAZY’ DRAWS CRITICISM FROM LEFT-LEANING OUTLETS

If Democrats now reject positions they embraced or tolerated in 2020, voters can reasonably expect an explanation. The key question is whether Democrats changed their minds or discovered that voters had.

There is nothing shameful about changing your mind. Real change requires connecting what you believed then with what you believe now and acknowledging where you got it wrong. Without that reckoning, voters are left to wonder whether the beliefs changed or the incentives did.

DNC’S 192-PAGE AUTOPSY SOUNDS LIKE BAD THERAPY. DEMOCRATS STILL HAVE A BIG PROBLEM

Democrats can compartmentalize 2020. Voters don’t have to.

A candidate may regard a six-year-old position as ancient history, but an opponent can revive it with an old interview, campaign questionnaire or social media post. “That was then” invites an obvious response: Yes, but that was you.

DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE CALLED FOR MASS RELEASE OF CRIMINALS DURING PRISON ABOLITION WEBINAR

Democrats aren’t unique in doing this. Every political party finds ways to distance itself from positions that become inconvenient. But 2020 poses a particular problem because so many political beliefs became tied to moral identity. Giving up a position can feel like admitting something about yourself, not just admitting that a policy was wrong.

There is a way out. Democrats could acknowledge that 2020 drew attention to genuine problems while also producing bad ideas. They could concede that some rhetoric went too far and that some people were treated unfairly for challenging the prevailing consensus. That doesn’t require abandoning concern about racism, police misconduct or inequality. It requires admitting that you can feel morally certain and still be wrong.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The familiar Democratic argument is about whether the party should move left or toward the center. “Woke 1” raises a more interesting question: Before Democrats decide where they are going, can they explain what they now think about where they have been?

“Woke 1 was crazy” sounds like a confession. But it isn’t quite one. A confession names what you got wrong. Compartmentalization puts it somewhere you no longer have to look.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN ALPERT

Despite being a card-carrying member of the International Order of Confirmed Homosexuals, I have spent quite a lot of time lately thinking about Abdul El-Sayed’s biceps. I mean, have you seen them? The progressive Michigan senate nominee is jacked and he knows it. He almost always wears a tight black T-shirt to show off his muscles and incorporates a lot of fitness content in his campaign.

I’m not the only one who has noticed El-Sayed’s prominent muscles. They have had a lot of coverage, and are seen as part of a wider attempt to rebrand the Democratic party. Which, I don’t need to tell you, has a serious image problem; a poll in March found that the party is looked on even less favourably than the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. So, to make it look less like a party that is full of out-of-touch technocrats who sound as if they are reading from a 500-page PowerPoint presentation every time they try to explain anything, Democrats seem to be trying to up the sex appeal.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Continue reading…

Despite being a card-carrying member of the International Order of Confirmed Homosexuals, I have spent quite a lot of time lately thinking about Abdul El-Sayed’s biceps. I mean, have you seen them? The progressive Michigan senate nominee is jacked and he knows it. He almost always wears a tight black T-shirt to show off his muscles and incorporates a lot of fitness content in his campaign.

I’m not the only one who has noticed El-Sayed’s prominent muscles. They have had a lot of coverage, and are seen as part of a wider attempt to rebrand the Democratic party. Which, I don’t need to tell you, has a serious image problem; a poll in March found that the party is looked on even less favourably than the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. So, to make it look less like a party that is full of out-of-touch technocrats who sound as if they are reading from a 500-page PowerPoint presentation every time they try to explain anything, Democrats seem to be trying to up the sex appeal.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Continue reading…

Despite being a card-carrying member of the International Order of Confirmed Homosexuals, I have spent quite a lot of time lately thinking about Abdul El-Sayed’s biceps. I mean, have you seen them? The progressive Michigan senate nominee is jacked and he knows it. He almost always wears a tight black T-shirt to show off his muscles and incorporates a lot of fitness content in his campaign.

I’m not the only one who has noticed El-Sayed’s prominent muscles. They have had a lot of coverage, and are seen as part of a wider attempt to rebrand the Democratic party. Which, I don’t need to tell you, has a serious image problem; a poll in March found that the party is looked on even less favourably than the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. So, to make it look less like a party that is full of out-of-touch technocrats who sound as if they are reading from a 500-page PowerPoint presentation every time they try to explain anything, Democrats seem to be trying to up the sex appeal.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Continue reading…

However, leadership requires thinking through consequences. Moratoria on new data center construction will arrest innovation, cede the future of artificial intelligence to Beijing, and threaten our national security. Blanket opposition deprives hardworking Americans of hundreds of millions of dollars in future wages per year. It shackles the most vibrant sector in commercial construction and eliminates a tax revenue lifeline that is currently funding local police departments, roads, and teacher salaries in counties across the nation.

If Democrats want to regain the trust of the American people, we must have a defined vision for the future that brings prosperity to all – not just the ultra-rich – and we have to be for something not just saying, “No.” We need to offer a constructive solution that doesn’t succumb to fearmongering, and prove that the party of the New Deal, the Great Society and the Apollo program is the party of solutions and sound policy, not demagoguery.

FROM NEW YORK TO TEXAS, STATES SHOULD RESPECT LOCAL CONTROL ON DATA CENTERS

Today, our party’s message is controlled by a vocal minority who don’t understand – or perhaps care – about the facts. In New York State in July, for instance, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul imposed a statewide moratorium on new data center construction. A growing number of local jurisdictions are taking similar action. In Congress, Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are proposing a national moratorium.

Have they considered that without data centers, the internet, their path to fame and national stature, is essentially useless? The tech industry would collapse and the economy would enter a tailspin. In lieu of letting states lead the way with blunt-force moratoria, we should develop national- or state-level Centers of Excellence that would provide every county board and municipal zoning authority the knowledge to make informed, transparent decisions. Those local governing bodies should absolutely listen to their constituents, be mindful of their many concerns, but above all, they need to give as much weight to facts as to emotions.

AI BOOM: DEMAND FOR DATA CENTERS DRIVES INNOVATION BY ENERGY, TECH INDUSTRIES TO PRODUCE NEW POWER SOURCES

Consider the controversy over electricity prices. It isn’t data centers driving up residential rates but a combination of issues with our aging power grid, President Donald Trump’s pointless war in Iran, and the ongoing war in Ukraine. The data center industry has agreed to supply its own power or pay for grid upgrades. The White House’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge now has 200 signatories resolving to find policy solutions. If data center and technology companies want to pay for the grid upgrades, let them.

Multiple studies show that under a well-designed rate policy, such as the new rate for Virginia’s Dominion Energy large-load customers, data centers pay as much or more in fees than the cost of the energy they consume, precluding the need for rate hikes while providing extra funds for grid upgrades and additional generation online, including nuclear and renewables.

WILLIE NELSON URGES AMERICANS TO FIGHT ‘WATER THIEVING’ AI DATA CENTERS DEVOURING RURAL TEXAS FARMLAND

Americans alarmed about water used to cool servers should know data centers’ consumption is a drop in the bucket compared to residential lawn irrigation, household plumbing leaks and golf courses. Here in Virginia, a state legislative committee found “most data centers use about the same amount of water or less as an average large office building.”

Newer data centers use treated sewage or closed-loop systems recycling water over and over again. These are all decisions that localities should mandate, without giving up the construction jobs, the permanent jobs and the local tax revenue.

Communities also worry data centers’ backup diesel generators are dirty and noisy. But these generators typically run only about 20 hours per year (or three minutes per day) for maintenance and testing. As for emissions, the proof is in the air itself. According to the EPA, the air in Northern Virginia – a data center hub – is the cleanest in decades.

In addition to facts, skeptics need to weigh the merits of prudent planning.

AMERICA’S AI BOOM IS A JOBS OPPORTUNITY, NOT AN EXCUSE FOR UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

Well-conceived development must limit data centers to land properly zoned for their use. Unfortunately, in Loudoun County, my home for the past 26 years, the Board of Supervisors made a poor decision to permit data centers in areas previously zoned for some office space within residential areas. The data center developers and the union labor building the data centers follow the rules, even bad ones.

Ultimately, the debate over data centers comes down to one question: Are they net contributors to our communities? For an answer, don’t just look at the tax revenue – look at the high-paying union jobs that are creating a new middle class – employees who are able to buy a home at 28 instead of 41 – jobs that pay $45 to $60 per hour.

THE WAR ON DATA CENTERS JEOPARDIZES OUR ECONOMY AND NATIONAL SECURITY

Data centers are disproportionately high contributors but light users of public resources. A 2025 PwC study found the industry contributed $162.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2023 alone. Here in Virginia’s Loudoun County, data centers take up 2% of our land but yield 38% of tax revenue. In Mecklenburg County, local officials built the first new school in 75 years with data center proceeds.

Data centers’ role in providing jobs and funding public services put the tax incentive debate in a more realistic context than the false claim that the industry receives unmerited “handouts.”

KEVIN O’LEARY WARNS CHINA IS WINNING THE AI RACE BECAUSE U.S. STATES ARE SLOWING DATA CENTER PRODUCTION

In Virginia this year, for instance, Gov. Abigail Spanberger and Democrats in the legislature came under pressure to kill a data center tax exemption common to all industrial companies. Then, the unions came to Richmond in May to express their support for the exemption, because data center investments supported 113,000 highly skilled, well-paying jobs in Virginia alone.

Instead of a moratorium, Spanberger and the Democrats brought data center developers into the conversation and found them prepared to pay more taxes to address concerns. The legislature passed a first-in-the-nation tax on energy consumption, a step Spanberger sees as foundational to a longer-term conversation about water usage and energy standards.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Data centers are private businesses, largely owned and operated by Americans within our framework of laws. Americans will debate; elected officials have an obligation to lead rather than simply react.

I’d urge my fellow Democrats: Follow the facts, bring data centers and their heavy spending on capital goods, wages and tax revenue into the conversation. And leave it to local authorities to decide if data centers belong in their communities.