“That means ending corporate contributions. It means standing with unions . . .against big corporations. It means taxing billionaires and their wealth. . . And it means finally guaranteeing health care to everybody through Medicare for All.”

Abdul El-Sayed, progressive candidate for U.S. Senate, Michigan

“[I was] f—king around on the internet at a time when I felt lost and very disillusioned with our government who sent me overseas to watch my friends die.”

Graham Platner, progressive candidate for U.S. Senate, Maine

The federal angle

Conventional wisdom says political parties, in search of power, pick candidates who can win public office. But both MAGA Republicans and ultra-progressive Democrats are willing to sacrifice power in government to gain control of their political party.

In the United States, extremist ideology and political power generally stand in conflict with one another because the public holds moderate views. When candidates compete head-to-head, they both run to the middle to win. Yet extremists are nonetheless steadily gaining ground within the two parties--even if at the price of winning general elections.

Partisan primaries are the driving force. Few voters participate in them, giving an advantage to those who are polarizing today’s politics. Three statewide elections in California, Michigan, and Maine illustrate the pattern. In California, an all-party primary has complicated the grab for power by the far left. Often accused of weird schemes and strange proclivities, the Golden State deserves praise and thanksgiving for encouraging citizens to vote and for facilitating the fortunes of moderate candidates. The other two states, Michigan and Maine, illustrate the farces that may occur when states retain the partisan primary system. There, progressives are doing their best to keep Democrats from capturing control of the U.S. Senate this coming fall.

It is an irony of contemporary politics that Democrats would have a better chance of strengthening their position on Capitol Hill if they substituted California-style all-party primaries for the partisan primaries found in most states. Yet Democrats, even more than Republicans, are opposed to all-party primaries. In California, the progressive left is condemning the “jungle primary,” the name they have invented for the all-party reform, and, under the guise of democracy, they are sponsoring an initiative that would bring back the partisan primary.

Voter Turnout

As compared to all-party primaries, the partisan primary suppresses democracy by limiting citizen participation in meaningful elections. In California, 40 percent of registered voters cast ballots in the state’s all-party gubernatorial primary. That turnout rate compares favorably to rates in partisan primaries, such as the 15 percent voting in Michigan’s last mid-term primary contest and only 22 percent in this year’s Maine primary contest for the Senate. Nationwide, the average turnout in partisan primaries is just 20 percent, half that in the recent all-party contest in California.

Opposition to the all-party primary is particularly ironic for Democrats who oppose the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) bill on the grounds it will exclude people from electoral participation. But the estimated impact of proposed changes in ballot rules is tiny—a percentage point or two at most--when compared to the large differences in turnout between partisan and all-party primaries.

Moving Politics to the Middle

When more people vote, primary outcomes typically benefit moderates. In California’s gubernatorial race, the ultra-progressive candidate, Tom Steyer, lost to two middle-of-the road candidates, because independents and wayward Republicans supported the Democrat they liked best. In Maine, you must enroll as a Democrat to vote in the party’s primary, and in Michigan you must stick with the same party for all offices up for election. That discourages independents and those affiliated with other parties from participating. Voter turnout is down and divided between the two partisan primaries, giving the far left a better chance of winning.

Michigan is holding its partisan primary elections on a hot day in early August, virtually guaranteeing low voter turnout. In a bitter 3-person race, Democratic Socialist, pro-Palestinian Abdul El-Sayed currently holds an advantage in the polls over moderate U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, with Mallory McMorrow, a state senator, running third. Whoever wins the primary will win in November, say the prediction markets, but Stevens, the moderate, has a stronger position than El-Sayed against Republican Mike Rogers in the general election. Any of the three Democrats might well win the November election in this traditionally blue state, but the race remains close in the polls, and if Rogers squeaks past El-Sayed, it will be another case of a party losing because of an ideological pull from the edge of the political spectrum.

In Maine, a partisan primary has left Democrats in even worse trouble. The candidate backed by Democratic Socialists, Graham Platner, is not only running wildly to the left but his sexual liaisons, vulgar language and possibly Nazi past are giving the contest away to competent, moderate Susan Collins, New England’s last Republican. Left-leaning news media say Platner won more votes than any Maine Democrat in history, but that was in a partisan primary that became meaningless after Governor Janet Mills withdrew from the race. Had an all-party primary rule been in place, Mills or some other middle-of-the-road candidate would likely have stayed the course and outpaced Platner.

The contests in Michigan and Maine are crucial. Democrats can win control of the Senate if they keep the seats they currently hold and defeat Republicans in North Carolina, Iowa, Alaska, and Maine, with Texas and Ohio longer shots. But if Republicans win the Wolverine State and the one tucked away in the northeast corner of the country, then Democrats could give away power for ideology. Ironically, all-party primaries would help the party most opposed to them.

____________________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University is the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University. Listen to his conversations on the Education Exchange podcast at www.educationnext.org

“The Top-Two primary system would allow voters [without a party] affiliation to participate in primaries. The reforms would also allow the potential for moderation or less extremity among candidates.”

Christian Gross, political scientist, University of Southern California.

“Unenrolled (or independent) voters, who make up 65 percent of the electorate in [Massachusetts] and lag in turnout in [partisan] primaries, are . . . sidelined in the most consequential stage of the election cycle.”

Danielle Allen, former candidate for governor, Massachusetts.

“[Opposition to Top Two is widespread among party leaders]. It’s something that unites progressive activists and party establishment types.”

Jonathan Cohn, Democratic State Committee Senator, Massachusetts

The federal angle

If the Top-Two initiative appears on the Massachusetts ballot next November, the Bay State, along with California and Washington, could become the third state to have a Top-Two primary. All voters would choose among the full range of candidates regardless of their party affiliation, with the two getting the most votes squaring off in the general election. Republicans may vote for a Democrat and vice versa.

California’s Top-Two primary at work

Top Two encourages moderates and penalizes extremists. In California, billionaire Tom Steyer, coming from the far left, is running third in the state’s Top-Two gubernatorial primary. A massive, self-financed advertising campaign makes him a viable candidate, but he is a wooden, inexperienced, and extreme progressive — even for California. Polls showing him trailing both Republican Steve Hilton, a TV host whose family had fled the communists in Hungary, and Democrat Xavier Beccera, Health and Human Services Secretary in the Biden Administration. Steyer cannot get the backing of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The Left leadership loves Steyer for his cash, but his moralizing, arrogance, and starched shirts don’t sell well among those scouring the streets for socialist workers.

Steyer’s main problem is the Top-Two system, however. Those more to the middle-of-the-roads like Hilton and Beccera can win votes from independents and members of the opposition party. Extremists are left to stew on the edges of the political spectrum. It’s not just Steyer. At the other end of the political divide, Republican Sheriff, Chad Bianco, ready to deport any undocumented immigrant he can find, cannot get President Trump’s endorsement. That the MAGA-in-chief president withholds his endorsement from a colorful right-wing law enforcement officer highlights just how powerful the Two-Top structure shifts the balance of power toward the middle.

Louisiana’s disastrous partisan primary

In Louisiana, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, a doctor who dared to vote for conviction in Trump’s impeachment trial, was just defeated in a low turnout primary. Only 14% of the electorate participated, and the vote split three ways. Julia Letlow came in first by getting about 6% of registered voters, while John Fleming won a run-off spot with 4%. Cassidy ran a close but insufficient third. Had a Top Two primary been in place, Cassidy would probably have led the pack by attracting some Democrats, who constituted 46% of all primary voters

The One-Party State of Massachusetts

The Coalition for a Healthy Democracy is hoping to bring Top-Two primaries to Massachusetts. The Bay State claims to be the sparkplug of the American Revolution, but it is remarkably undemocratic today. The state’s governor, attorney general, two U. S. Senators, nine members of Congress, and 84 percent of those elected to its legislature come from the same party. Its general elections are predetermined, and, since 2014, over half of all primary races have been uncontested. Massachusetts ranks last among all states on the competitive index compiled by the nonpartisan election watcher, Ballotpedia. One might think Massachusetts is so decidedly Democrat that it makes no difference whether Republicans could vote in a Top Top primary. But even Donald Trump got 36% of the vote in 2024. In other words, the Bay State excludes more than a third of the electorate from political life.

Those supporting a “healthy democracy” include former Governor Deval Patrick former Lt. Governor Kerry Healey, former Rep. Joe Kennedy III, the state auditor, a former Democratic national committee member, and a Harvard professor, Danielle Allen, a former candidate for governor soundly defeated in a partisan primary. To some, the list seems like a bunch of “has beens” but in fact most are thoughtful, informed leaders unburdened by an immediate ax to grind.

Unprincipled opposition to Top Two

The Democratic State Committee, controlled by insiders and progressives, supports a court suit designed to keep Top Two from appearing on the Massachusetts ballot. Ironically, the state’s supreme court justices, appointed by a Democratic governor and confirmed by a Democratic state senate, could decide in the next few weeks that citizens cannot vote for or against a pro-democracy initiative.

Those who dislike Top Two call it a “jungle primary.” Ultra-progressive New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie unconvincingly argues that “third parties are shut out of the process” and “in the event two candidates of the same party are chosen for the general election, there’s a strong chance that turnout will sharply decline.” That could happen in California, if Democrat Tom Steyer slips by Steve Wilson, but victories by two candidates from the same party in Top Two elections are black swan events. Bouie worries more about bizarre exceptions than perpetually low turnout rates in partisan primaries, and he seems to think third-party self-parades are highly preferable to broad citizen engagement in a meaningful political event.

The Unfolding Texas Story: Will a Partisan Primary cost Republicans the Senate

In Texas, a partisan primary could cost Republicans a Senate seat, perhaps the difference in Senate control next year. On Tuesday, Republican Senator John Cornyn lost to Trump-endorsed but Ken Paxton in a low turn-out, MAGA-dominated Republican primary, giving Democrats a chance to win in November. With Democrats and independents voting in a Top Two election, Cornyn would very likely have been re-elected.

Conclusion

Top-Two primaries are needed now more than ever. As Republicans move south and into the mountain states, leaving the northeast and coastal west as Democratic strongholds, a rising share of the electorate is not voting in a state’s decisive electoral contest. Loyal Republicans in blue states and faithful Democrats in red states are, more than in the past, casting votes for candidates in the all-but-meaningless minority-party primary. They may like their candidates but their choice typically has only an outside chance in the November election. Meanwhile, the majority party is picking its candidate in low turnout elections held at times when the public is more interested in spring clean-ups and summer holidays than political contests. A Top-Two primary system would not solve every structural problem the country faces, but it would accomplish three objectives: 1) the number of voters participating in key elections would increase substantially; 2) middle-of-the-road candidates could draw support from the full range of the political spectrum, and 3) both political parties would have a good chance of placing their strongest candidate on the general election ballot in November. Two-Top primaries work for democracy — and for those who seek to govern responsibly.

____________________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University is the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University. Listen to his conversations on the Education Exchange podcast at www.educationnext.org

For years, colleges have relied upon Advanced Placement or AP exams as tougher, more stable signals of college readiness than high school grade point averages. But that trust is now misplaced — at least for the most common exams that dominate the AP landscape.

Twelfth grade students Sohrab Pasikhani, left, and Bridgette LaFaye work in their Advanced Placement (AP) Physics class at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington, Friday, Feb. 7, 2014. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Since 2021, nine of the frequently taken AP exams have shifted to a new scoring system. On these tests, the share of students earning the top score of 5 has risen by about 60 percent in just four years; the share earning a passing score of 3 or higher has climbed by roughly 37 percent.

Less common AP exams still function as dependable indicators of high achievement, but the popular tests — the ones filling student transcripts and driving many admissions decisions — no longer do.

This matters because AP scores carry real academic and financial weight. Multiple top scores can tip the scales at Ivy League and highly selective colleges. Many institutions grant credit or placement for scores of 4 and 5; most non-selective colleges award credit for scores of 3.

With more than 1.3 million students taking roughly 4.8 million exams in 2025 at $99 each, billions of dollars in tuition, time-to-degree and institutional reputation hinge on these scores. The integrity of AP depends on a scoring system that is stable across subjects and over time.

Historically, AP scoring was anchored by expert judgment. Until 2022, each exam’s score distribution was set by a small panel of experienced college professors and high school teachers chosen for subject-matter expertise and a clear sense of what performance merited advanced placement. They determined what share of test takers should receive each score from 1 to 5, and those distributions stayed fairly stable from year to year.

After 2021, the College Board introduced a different approach — evidence-based standard setting — for most high-volume exams such as English language and composition, U.S. history, English literature, world history, U.S. government and politics, psychology, biology, human geography and chemistry. Lower-volume exams such as music theory, art history, Japanese, Italian and some physics courses continued under the traditional expert-panel system.

Evidence-based standard-setting works differently from the old model. Instead of relying on a small, carefully selected panel of experts, the College Board now consults hundreds of college instructors and asks what proportion of students should receive each score. In practice, this produces substantially lower standards than those of the earlier panels.

Once the new standard-setting model arrived, scores on the nine popular exams suddenly improved in historically unprecedented ways. Between 2021 and 2025, the share of students earning a 5 rose from about 10 percent to 16 percent, on average. The share earning a 4 or 5 jumped from 29 percent to 46 percent. Passing rates (3 or higher) climbed from about 52 percent to 71 percent.

The College Board publicly denies any “dumbing down.” Trevor Packer, the senior vice president for AP, emphasizes that “the exams themselves have not changed” and that statistical equating keeps difficulty constant.

This is technically true but strategically incomplete. You do not need easier questions to lower standards; you can simply change how raw scores are mapped onto the 1-5 scale — which is precisely what evidence-based standard-setting enables. The College Board says it aims to bring all exams to a 60 to 80 percent success rate. In 2025, the average passing rate on the nine evidence-based standard-setting exams was 71 percent, almost the midpoint of that target band.

Although the College Board is a non-profit organization, financial and market incentives help explain this shift. By calculation, over 86 percent of the College Board’s revenue comes from program services, 48 percent of which are generated by the basic AP exam fee. To sustain this model, AP must remain attractive to schools, families and policymakers. High pass rates — engineered quietly through relaxed scoring — support that goal.

For admissions officers and counselors, the implications are clear and urgent. AP scores are no longer directly comparable across subjects and years. A score of 4 in AP U.S. History under the new scoring model is not equivalent to a 4 in Music Theory or a 4 in U.S. History back in 2021.

The most common exams are the most inflated. Evaluators must, therefore, note which AP subjects a student took, in which years, and treat high scores on exams affected by the new scoring model as weaker signals than scores on exams that retained traditional standard setting.

AP remains influential, but it is no longer a uniform, stable check on grade inflation. For many popular exams, recent score reports reflect not a surge in student mastery, but a quiet lowering of the bar.

Originally published in The Hill on 04/21/26
Peterson, Paul E. “How a new evaluation model dumbs down Advanced Placement scores.” The Hill, 21 Apr. 2026, thehill.com/opinion/education/5839642-ap-exam-scoring-system/

____________________________________________________________________________
Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

The election “The working class have been abandoned and have delivered their verdict.”

Sharon Graham, General Secretary of Unite (formerly Transport and General Workers Union)

“When you elect Reform, you get real change. . . Reform has sought to . . . stop Labor’s net zero zealots from covering good agricultural land with one of the largest solar farms in Europe. . . In Lancashire, the Reform-run council has declared[ed] . . . it will leave the Government’s migrant resettlement program.”

Nigel Farage, British Reform Party Leader

“[Starmer] will not lead the Labor Party into the next general election . . . Where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift.”

Wes Streeting, Minister of Health, U. K, resignation speech.

The federal angle

In England, “all elections are national,” and in 2026 that is particularly true: the May local elections could drive a socialist prime minister from office. Alarmed at Labor’s devasting defeat at the hands of the populist Reform party on May 7, political figures on Labor’s left wing are calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation. Local elections resonate nationally for many reasons (see addendum below), but there is no doubt a political volcano erupted on May 7. The Reform party has exploded out of nowhere to win nearly a third of England’s local council seats. It has captured the imagination of a working class vexed by climate, immigration, and social service policies. Meanwhile, the Labor party has sky-dived from 50% of all council seats to just 21%.

Horserace (Winner-Take All) Elections

The magnitude of the political transformation is accentuated by the United Kingdom’s horserace electoral system. As in most U.S. elections, candidates, like horses, take the prize if they are first to pass the post. A plurality, not necessarily a majority, is all it takes to win everything. When four parties contend, as was the case in Britain’s local elections, the one who wins a larger share of the votes can capture a lion’s share of the council positions. In Havering, Hammersmith, and Fulham, Reform translated about a third of the vote into three-quarters of the council seats. In England as a whole, Reform got only about a quarter of the vote, but it won nearly a third of England’s councilors.

Two years ago, the party won 14% of the vote but elected only 5 candidates to the 650-seat House of Commons. Had Britain a system of proportional representation found in most parts of the European continent, it would have won 90 parliamentary seats. Just two years, later, the shoe was on the other foot. In the May 7 local elections, Reform turned a 25% share of the vote into a third of borough council seats.

Collapse of Mainstream Parties

Horserace election rules have added to Keir Starmer’s woes as prime minister. He won office by a landslide in 2024 even though his Labor party received only 35% of the vote. When voters cast their ballots among four parties (Reform, Labor, Conservative and Liberal), they created an opportunity for Labor to win 63% representation in parliament, nearly twice the share it would have obtained under Proportional representation. That excessive parliamentary majority raised expectations that Prime Minister Keir Starmer could not meet when a sluggish economy and falling financial markets derailed campaign promises to lift working class wages and fix the country’s health care and social service crises.

Locally, Labor had been in control of 50% of English council seats, but the disastrous May election left them with just 21%, a massive dive. Today, polls say only 17 percent of adults would vote Labor were a parliamentary election held today.

It is not just Labor. The Conservative party’s representation at the borough level has dropped 10 percentage points to just 16%, less than that of the Liberal party. Reform now reigns as the largest party in English local government.

Populism is penetrating Wales and Scotland as well. The Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru won the election with a 35% voter share, but Reform established itself as a strong rival by winning 29% percent and more than a third of the Senedd seats. The Scottish Nationalist party remained in power within its home region, but Reform captured 17 new seats, making it the only viable opposition party in the region’s parliament. Penalized by the horserace rule, Labor and Conservative trail far behind.

Reform’s Future

The next parliamentary election must be held by August 2029, but the prime minister can ask the King for an earlier election at any time. Were one held today, a quarter of the adult population would vote Reform, opinion polls tell us, with just 18% picking a Conservative and 17% a Laborite. With votes widely spread among parties, just a modest increase in the Reform share of the vote would produce a majority in parliament. Unless something changes soon, Reform is poised to choose the first populist leader who journeys to Buckingham Palace to bow before the King.

No wonder Britain’s bond market is sliding as Keir Starmer’s political standing falters. If Starmer resigns, his successor will be chosen at a party convention that seems prepared to replace Starmer’s wobbles and uncertainties with full-bore socialism. Currently, the odds favor Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, celebrated for his expansionary social welfare policies and his readiness to assert government control over public utilities. A seat in the House of Commons has just been vacated so that he can become eligible for the job within a month or so. He hardly seems a recipe for economic growth.

A week is a lifetime in British politics, as former prime minister Harold Wilson once said. Starmer’s position improved slightly when the latest data showed an uptick in the country’s growth rate. If that continues, Starmer might survive in office, and populism could be no more than a flash in a pan. Like shadows, horseraces can bounce up and down as dramatically as an Indian rubber ball. But for the moment, the Reform shadow looms large.

Democrats Beware

Reform’s explosion out of the wilderness parallels Trump’s arrival from nowhere in 2016. Like Reform, MAGA mobilized working class support by campaigning against climate obsession, open borders, unbridled spending, and minority favoritism.

Today, Democratic leaders are trying to recapture worker support by changes in décor: overalls, beer, curses, and talks about affordability. That strategy might work for an opposition party in off-year elections with lower voter turnout. In Maine, Graham Platner, the oysterman with a Nazi tattoo, has a chance against Republican Susan Collins.

Still, English local elections tell us that populism is alive and well in western industrial democracies. MAGA will not be easy to dislodge now that it controls the perquisites of power. Trump’s popularity has slid, but it must fall much further before workers turn to an ultra-progressive candidate like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now leading in the primary polls, or to Kamala Harris, now trying to overtake Cortez by calling for an end to filibusters in the Senate, a restructuring of the Supreme Court, and statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

With redistricting, the race for the House of Representatives is closer than ever, but Democrats will probably recapture the Speakership, and they could have an outside chance of winning the Senate. But if the party wanders into ultra-progressive left field, their appeals to the working class will be no more successful in 2028 than they were in 2024. British local elections tell us the working class remains as populist as ever.

_______________________________________________________________________

Addendum: In England, All Politics is National

Former Speaker of the House Thomas “Tip” O’Neill exaggerated when he asserted “all politics is local” in the United States. In England today, an opposite exaggeration applies: “All politics is national.”

Local government in the United Kingdom differs by region. Northern Ireland had no election on May 7. Wales and Scotland elect representatives to regional governments that have a degree of independence from parliament. Most of English local government is organized by borough with elected councils.

Parliament has ultimate power. It can reorganize local government as it sees fit, and in recent years it has made periodic changes in local borders and responsibilities, undermining attachments to local institutions. An independent civil service limits councilors’ influence over borough officials and their ability to perform constituency services. Those who run for council typically place a party label and party slogan below their name on the ballot.

Local elections are not perfect replications of a parliamentary election. They attract only a third of the electorate, as compared to two-thirds who turn out for parliamentary elections. But when elections throughout Britain are all held on a single day, as happened on May 7, local elections indicate the national mood.

____________________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

“I don’t want it, you can have it, it’s too fat for me.”

Politically Incorrect Song of the 1940s (modified).

“Zach Wahls is running to shake things up . . . He’s taking on a corrupt system that’s rigged against working families; a system where giant corporations, their lobbyists, and their super PACs funnel millions to candidates . . . so those politicians let them jack up prices on groceries, prescriptions drugs, and the basics Iowans need to get by.”

Elizabeth Warren, U. S. Senator, MA (Dem.)_

“Believe me, as a senator, I don’t appreciate so much of my time is being spent answering questions about the latest that our president has said instead of asking me questions about the legislation that I’m actually working on. . . . Deep inside, no, I don’t think he’s a racist. . . I think he’s brash and he says things that are on his mind, but I don’t truly believe that he’s a racist.”

Joni Ernst, U. S. Senator, Iowa (Rep.)

“John Cornyn . . . has not represented the people of Texas. . . Everything that Trump stood for, John Cornyn’s fought.”

Robert Paxton, Candidate for U. S. Senate, (Texas. Republican)

The federal angle

Control of the U.S. Senate is the fattest cow chewing its cud inside the 2026 political barn. In addition to its legislative tasks, the Senate is responsible for the confirmation of presidential nominations of federal judges and high-level executive officers. All treaties must be approved by a two-thirds Senate vote, and Senate committee hearings command national attention. The role of the House of Representatives is to pass legislation, hold hearings, and impeach presidents. But only the Senate can convict a president of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Yet neither Trump nor progressive Democrats are placing high priority on owning this fat cow, and it is worth thinking for a minute just why that may be so.

For Trump, little is to be gained from control of the upper chamber of Congress once the lower chamber has been lost, as most election observers expect. Unless he controls both chambers, only broadly bipartisan measures have much chance of reaching the president’s desk. Trump and his MAGA team have in fact a political interest in not keeping control of the Senate. If both House and Senate are controlled by Democrats, the Republicans’ next presidential candidate, whether it be Vance, Rubio, or some unknown, will be able to attack a do-nothing Congress, just as Harry Truman did successfully in 1948.

Rather than capturing the Senate, Trump’s main goal is to consolidate the MAGA team’s hold over the Republican party. He repeatedly shows a preference for nominating right-wing supporters in primaries to the election of regular, moderate Republicans in November.

Republicans lose control of the Senate if four of the five Republican seats currently at risk shift to the Democrats and none of the losses are offset by a Republican pick-up elsewhere. Trump lost the North Carolina seat last year when Senator Thom Tillis became so disgusted with the president he announced his forthcoming retirement. It is a near certainty he will be replaced by Democrat Roy Cooper, a popular former governor. A second seat could be lost in Iowa for much the same reason. Senator Joni Ernst announced her retirement unexpectedly, also likely due to frustration with White House antics. Maine’s savvy Republican Senator Susan Collins could be the third loss, though she is effectively using her position as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee to thread a way to a fourth victory in an increasingly Democratic state. Alaska’s Republican Dan Sullivan is expected to win re-election, but the Frontier State could hand Trump a fourth loss if Congresswoman Mary Peltola runs a strong campaign. Even if Sullivan wins in Alaska, Republicans could still lose control of the Senate if MAGA forces defeat Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn in the primary runoff with MAGA favorite Robert Paxton. Judged by his non-endorsement of Cornyn, Trump doesn’t seem to care.

So, Democrats could be milking the Senate in 2027. Chuck Schumer, desperate to keep his position as minority leader in the face of incessant criticism from the left, hopes to be the man under the udder. But Schumer’s endeavors are being undermined by an ultra-progressive triumvirate, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, all of whom are more focused on party control than a Democratic Senate.

Schumer has bragging rights in three of the five top races. He persuaded Cooper and Peltola run for the Senate in North Carolina and Alaska, respectively. In Texas, Democrats have unified behind a soft-spoken Christian, James Talarico, who could win if Republicans are unable to regain their footing after their the Cornyn-Paxton wrestling match.

But Schumer’s successes in picking strong, moderate candidates that have a good chance of defeating Republicans in November end there. In other states, ultra-progressives have good chances of winning primaries but at high risk of losing in November. In Maine, Graham Platner, an angry oyster-farmer with a Nazi tattoo, will run as an uber-progressive against Collins. Her hands may tremble, but her political footing now rests on solid ground. In Iowa, Warren-endorsed state senator Zack Wahls is leading Josh Turek, a four-time Olympic wheelchair basketball star and member of the state legislature. Wahls may rally progressives in a low-turnout primary, but his chances of winning the general are slim.

Schumer’s endeavors are also threatened by leftists in Michigan; a state Democrats could ordinarily count on. Schumer is backing a regular Democratic moderate, Haley Stevens. But the two candidates now leading in the polls are the Sanders-backed Abdul El-Sayed and the Warren-endorsed Mallory McMorrow place.

With MAGA and the Democratic left both placing a higher priority on winning control of their own party than defeating the partisan opposition, the outcome in November remains uncertain. But are both extremes correct in their calculations? Could defeat in 2026 guarantee victory in 2028? Can one actually win in the long game by losing in the short run? Can one run against a do-nothing Congress controlled by the other political party?

History gives uneven guidance. Truman was the last Democrat to win an election against a Congress under the control of Republicans, but Republicans turned the tables on five subsequent to Truman’s surprise victory. But no party in the Twenty-first Century has won the presidency without having controlled at least one of the two chambers on Capitol Hill in the period leading up to the presidential election.

Even so, Trump and his MAGA followers have little to lose even if Democrats capture the Senate. The president will undoubtedly be impeached by the House, but the Senate will never find the two-thirds vote needed for a conviction. Democrats will press for spending increases and higher deficits, but MAGA has never shown signs of being any less irresponsible when it comes to balancing the national budget. On immigration laws, election procedures, and abortion law, Trump can veto anything he doesn’t like, just as Eisenhower did.

Similarly, the progressive left has more to gain than to lose from Democratic defeat in the 2026 Senate races. They can blame Schumer for defeat and have every chance of electing an alternative minority leader who tilts more in their direction.

Senate control means so little for those at the edge of the political spectrum, because the legislative branch has been eclipsed by the executive. Over many decades, presidential power has been extended in many directions—downward through greater control over the executive branch itself, outward towards larger influence beyond the country’s borders, and sideways by clipping the powers of Congress.

The judiciary, the third branch of government, remains independent of executive power, but the second branch has become no more than a slim shadow of its former self.

____________________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

“Nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”

Section 2, Voting Rights Act, 1965

“Interpreting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the [Constitution] does not protect. . . [States] may use traditional districting factors such as compactness, contiguity, maintaining the integrity of political subdivisions, preserving the core of existing districts, and protecting incumbents. . . The desirability of some of these criteria might be disputed. But. . . they are not forbidden by the Constitution

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Majority

“Today’s decision renders Section 2 [of the Voting Rights Act] all but a dead letter. In the states . . . still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting, minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. . . Minority citizens . . . will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And minority representation in government institutions will sharply decline.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Minority

The federal angle

The Supreme Court’s latest decision on racial redistricting in Louisiana represents a significant victory for political moderation—a blow delivered against both the radical right and the ultra-progressive left. While the decision’s impact on House partisan control after 2026 remains uncertain, its long-term significance is clear: moderates have won. Extremist candidates will face greater resistance when contending in congressional and legislative primaries.

The Court’s judgment resolves a fundamental incoherence in electoral law: the attempt to end racism through construction of racially defined political jurisdictions. The resolution enunciated by the Court’s conservative majority moves the republic toward a race-neutral society.

The Logical Flaw in the Liberal Dissent

Justice Kagan’s dissent, though forcefully argued, contains a critical flaw in reasoning. She contends that “minority citizens will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice”—a grammatically plural claim that obscures an uncomfortable truth: individuals cast votes, not minorities. The phrase assumes monolithic preferences across all minority voters, diverging from those of all white voters—an assumption that contradicts lived political reality.

Historical Irony: The “Zorro District”

Remarkably, this same doctrine originated not with progressive judges, but with Republican administrations. In the 1980s, the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush Justice Departments invoked the Voting Rights Act to demand that Louisiana redesign districts “in a manner that would more effectively provide to black voters an equal opportunity . . . to elect candidates of their choice.” Their solution: concentrate “significant concentrations of black voters” into one serpentine shape—the infamous, flaming Z or “Zorro district,” one that combined areas along the state’s northern border with areas running down the Mississippi River and across the bayous and wetlands bordering the Gulf.

The partisan calculation behind Zorro was transparent: “packing” Black voters into concentrated aggregations enhanced Republican prospects elsewhere throughout the state. This strategy, employed throughout the South, received considerable credit for the 1994 Republican surge and Newt Gingrich’s ascent to Speaker of the House.

The irony is striking: today’s Democratic-appointed justices defend the exact doctrine that Republican administrations deployed in the 1980s, while six conservative Republican-appointed justices now reject race-conscious gerrymandering as incompatible with truly race-neutral politics.

Why Racial Polarization Appears Monolithic

It is undeniably true that overwhelming majorities of Black voters support Democratic candidates, while substantial majorities of white Southern voters support Republicans. But this polarization is not inevitable—it is structurally constructed.

The first-past-the-post electoral system used in general elections throughout the United States severely penalizes third-party candidates, squeezing voters into a binary choice. Under a European-style proportional representation system, the profound heterogeneity of opinion within ethnic groups would become immediately apparent.

The Real Problem: Segregated Primary Elections

The deeper issue lies in primary elections. Over 80 percent of House seats are effectively decided before general election day—before voters cast ballots in the election that is supposed to be the most important The Cook Political Report rates only 18 of 435 seats in the House of Representatives as competitive “toss-ups” in the general election this coming fall.

Racial gerrymandering intensifies this problem. In heavily Black southern districts, November’s winner is predetermined—and that winner, selected in low-turnout primaries, often exhibits extremely liberal voting behavior. Precisely the same dynamic operates in an opposite direction in heavily white southern districts where Black voters have been effectively excluded from influence.

The conclusion is inescapable: racial gerrymandering fosters extremism. Combining races together would force political candidates to reach out to both sides of the racial divide, encouraging moderate-style politics such as was used to great effect by Bill Clinton in Arkansas and George W. Bush in Texas.

Contradiction in Progressive Jurisprudence

Justice Kagan and her colleagues present a glaring paradox: they steadfastly oppose segregation in schools, workplaces, and colleges. Yet when democracy’s fundamental act—voting—occurs, they insist on isolating Black citizens into segregated electoral enclaves. Today’s terminology—”dilution” and “cracking”—frames integration as harm rather than celebrating the civic benefit of bringing disparate populations into genuine dialogue.

Abstraction vs. Reality

The ethnic identities of voters should not be over-simplified to a majority vs. minority divide or defined simply as blacks, whites, Hispanics, or Asians. Many, perhaps most, voters may see themselves as West Indians, Nigerians, Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, Italians, Poles, Chinese Filipino, Japanese, Danish, or some other more nationality or cultural group. Nor is ethnic self-identification necessarily a voter’s defining characteristic. Each is a composites of many personal characteristics and social roles, whether they be conservative or liberal, passive or aggressive, female, or male, rich or poor, renter or homeowner, urban, suburban or rural residents, and more.

An opponent of the recently enacted Virginia redistricting plan makes the same error as Justice Kagan in a letter recently published by the Wall Street Journal. He laments a the drawing of district lines leave “enormous swaths of Virginia, like the Shenandoah Valley and Northern Neck, . . . [no longer] represented by local residents, familiar with local economic and cultural issues.” That critique mistakes conceptual abstraction for reality. Swaths do not vote; people do. When urban and rural voters must cast ballots within the same district, elected representatives will find it in their political interest to consider not only the competing needs of both but the wide range of individual differences within each swath.

The Court’s decision affirms that genuine equality emerges not through segregation, but through integration. By rejecting the doctrine that minority voters require separate electoral spheres, the Court has chosen a nobler path: one where all citizens, regardless of background, participate in the shared project of self-governance.

____________________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

The discussion of the Reagan and Bush Administration is taken from Paul E. Peterson, “A Politically Correct Solution to Racial Classification.” In Paul E. Peterson, Classifying by Race (Princeton, 1996). Quotation marks in text are from sources cited in the original essay. I do not use quotation marks when quoting myself.

“Methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King’s company.”

Shakespeare, Henry V

“It is nice to trace how the actions of a retired widow [Queen Victoria] and an unemployed youth [Prince of Wales] become of such importance.”

Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution

“Much about the times we live in would have troubled [my mother] deeply.”

King Charles III

The federal angle

As King Charles III and Queen Consort Camilla arrive in Washington, D.C. later this month to celebrate the 250^thanniversary of the Declaration of Independence, President Donald Trump might well spend some preparation time reading Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution. Written in 1867 when Queen Victoria’s popularity was reaching its zenith, Bagehot’s masterpiece distinguishes the dignified aspect of government personified by the Monarch from the efficient, policy-making aspect under the control of the prime minister. Dignity generates public trust essential for governance; efficient policymaking puts that trust to use.

Physical separation of the dignified from the efficient aspects of government is possible in the British kingdom with a hereditary monarchy, but in a democratic republic like the United States, the president is both the head of the government and the head of state. Later this month King Charles III and President Trump shall shake hands as equals.

Used wisely, the dignified aspect of the presidency can foster public confidence, soften conflict, and facilitate effective action. Unfortunately, Trump chooses indignity instead. He regularly insults those with which he disagrees—even Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. Some of this may be excused as necessary partisanship. But no purpose can be served by reprimanding Pope Leo XIV or displaying sacrilegious self-presentations as the Son of God. No previous American president has so foolishly tossed away the dignity inherent in the office since President Andrew Johnson was impeached for “”intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues” against Congress.

Obviously, the dignified aspect of governance must be redefined in a democratic republic. Presidents may travel on personal jets, ride in bomb-proof limousines, appear at major sports festivals, and celebrate national holidays, but they cannot bedeck themselves with pins of nobility or other aristocratic accoutrements. Nor do they have a supporting cast—a House of Lords, Prince of Wales, multiple castles, and a ritualistic Changing of the Horse Guard.

No one understood that more clearly than George Washington. He refused to be called “His Excellency” or any other exalted title, so it was settled that he would be introduced as Mr. President, a practice that continues to this day. Shortly after his Inauguration, Washington embarked on a tour of a disconnected country where each state was linked to the coast by East-West dirt paths rather than joined together by North-South ones. He traveled nearly two thousand miles on several tours simply “to see and be seen.” His public speeches ordinarily consisted of nothing other than two words, “thank you.” That was the point. A president who says little symbolizes unity in a land with deep divisions.

Two and a half centuries later, the country remains nearly as divided, but a dignified, quiescent, dignified president no longer fosters unity. Trump issues roughly eighteen comments a day on his Truth Social platform. Too many of them express personal grievances or accuse and condemn political opponents.

To maintain dignity, a monarch “should be aloof and solitary,” says Bagehot. The sovereign “is commonly hidden like a mystery, and sometimes paraded like a pageant, but in neither case is it contentious.” Unlike Kings and Queens, presidents cannot separate themselves from the exercise of direct power, but they are well-advised to distance themselves as much as possible from controversial exercises of authority. President Eisenhower, an experienced wartime commander-in-chief bedeviled by strong-willed subordinates, knew how to govern by indirection. He fulfilled his election-winning promise to “go to Korea,” but he then left it to two lesser-known army generals to sign the unsatisfactory armistice ending the conflict. Eisenhower also sent troops to Arkansas to enforce desegregation of Little Rock schools, but he misleadingly justified his action as necessary “to prevent opposition by violence to orders of a court,” not to “enforce integration.” In a democratic republic, a president preserves dignity by delegating responsibility for doing the unpopular thing that needs to be done.

Trump insists on having it otherwise. He identifies himself as responsible even when he lacks sufficient authority to address the issue. The President aggressively calls for unpopular deportations of immigrants when border-closing is sufficient for his purposes. He personifies gridlock in Washington by threatening to veto all other legislation until his preferred voter identification bill is enacted. On Iran, his public stance flip-flops daily when he, like Eisenhower, could leave negotiations to others. By repeatedly attacking an independent Reserve, the president has become the face of the “affordability” issue.

This is not necessarily a criticism of what Bagehot referred to as the efficiency aspect of the current U. S. government. Trump has been addressing genuine problems in ways his predecessors did not. Illegal immigration has been tearing the country’s social tissue; federal expenditures during Covid exploded to unacceptable levels and now need to be cut; Europeans need to assume greater responsibility for their own defense; the Russian-Ukrainian War cannot continue indefinitely; fundamentalist Islam must be confronted before terrorists acquire nuclear weapons; and public trust demands that voters prove their identity before casting a ballot. But President Trump’s handling of the dignified aspect of government is undermining public confidence in his policies, limiting his capacity to accomplish the goals he seeks. King Charles III may be new to his job, but he can still teach the president the value of quiet dignity.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

“To my family, staff, friends, and supporters, I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s.”

Eric Swalwell, U. S. Rep. Dem.

“I think it is terrifying to think about what Trump would do to Californians if we had a governor who at every turn cooperated with him. . . I think the stakes are very, very, very high.”

Katie Porter, former U. S. Rep., Dem.

“We have to take on these electric monopolies. If we break up these monopolistic power utilities, we’ll drive downcosts.”

Tom Steyer, Democratic wealthy environmental activist, Dem.

“There’s strong support for the President in California,” Hilton said. “Look at how many millions of votes that he got, more votes in 2024 than any previous Republican presidential candidate for a long time.”

Steve Hilton, Trump-endorsed Rep.

“We’re leading the race in the newest [April 5] poll.”
Chad Bianco, Riverside County Sheriff, Rep.

The federal angle

Congressman Eric Swalwell, faced with charges of sexual harassment, has pulled out of a hotly contested gubernatorial race in California, catapulting the state’s Top Two primary system into a national news story. California’s innovative way of choosing candidates has been ridiculed, but, in truth, its approach stands well above the standard partisan primary.

In most states, the real election isn’t in November. It happens months earlier, in a low-turnout primary where only a small, more ideologically motivated slice of voters shows up.

In 46 states, voters must first pick a party ballot: Republican, Democratic, or minor party. Candidates are sorted by partisan machines before a ballot is cast.

California and Washington have abandoned this approach. There, all candidates—regardless of party—appear on a single primary ballot. Every voter gets to choose from all the candidates. The top two finishers advance to November, even if they’re from the same party. (Alaska uses a Top Four variation, and Louisiana has its own two-stage system.)

The rest of the country should follow. Top Two (and similar) primary systems widen participation, reward moderation, and soften partisan conflict. They aren’t perfect and can produce odd outcomes. But they are meaningfully better than a dubious system from the racist past that quietly empowers those on the edges of the political spectrum.

Problems with Partisan Primaries

Partisan primaries are where American democracy quietly misfires. Defects stand out.

1. Low turnout.
   Ordinarily, they are held on random dates spread throughout the year and, in the absence of unusual circumstances, are given peripheral media attention. Eighty percent of Americans did not vote in the 2022 primary elections. That means about 10 percent participated in the Republican primary and another 10 percent votes cast in the Democratic one. In other words, candidates can win with the nomination of major political party with the support of little more than 5 percent of the potential electorate. What a break for any small fraction seeking out-sized power!

Most of the time, these low-visibility, barely democratic, primaries are
determinative. In 2026, over 80 percent of the seats in the 2026 elections to the
House of Representatives were considered “safe” as early as 18 months before
election day. At this writing, the neutral Cook Political Report rated only 18 of 435
seats as “toss-ups.” Elections are not decided in November but in primaries spread
across random Tuesdays throughout the year.

2. Incumbents dominate. Over the past three-quarters of a century, incumbent members of Congress seeking re-election have won the primary contest 98 percent of the time. Unless they lose out in a redistricting plan or suffer a scandal, they turn their name recognition, fund-raising capacity, and government-paid staff into an insuperable advantage no challenger can surmount.

3. Punishing moderation.
   Still, there are times, especially in statewide senatorial and gubernatorial races, when primaries are contested. It is then that forces driving party polarization becomes visible. Activist ideologues press more moderate candidates to prove their ideological purity. Willingness to compromise earns a candidate the RINO/DINO label—Republican or Democrat In Name Only. Even regular party loyalists are pulled toward the edge--Republicans toward the hard right and Democrats toward the uber-progressive left.

Pressures from extremes could even determine control of the Senate this coming
fall. In key races, moderates are at risk of losing to purists who thrill the base but
repel the broader electorate. Republican Majority Leader John Thune is trembling
at thought of Trump shooting the party in the foot in the Texas primary by
withholding his endorsement of an incumbent senator facing a flawed right-wing
super-patriot. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer shakes his head in dismay
at Bernie Sanders who has endorsed an ultra-progressive in Maine who is
undermining Democrats in a crucial contest by undermining the candidacy of the
state’s governor. The party could well be handing the victory once again to the
astute Republican senator, Susan Collin.

How Top Two Works—and Why It Helps

Top Two primaries, first introduced in the State of Washington and then adopted by California in a 2010 referendum, tackle these distortions at their roots.

Instead of separate Republican and Democratic primaries, there is one primary ballot for everyone. Every candidate—Republican, Democrat, Independent, minor-party—appears on it. Every voter gets the same ballot. The two highest vote-getters advance to November.

That change has several important effects:

1. A path for moderates.
   Independents no longer need to register with a party for their primary vote to matter. Republicans can consider a centrist Democrat; Democrats can consider a pragmatic Republican. An Independent or third-party candidate can seek support from the broad middle of the political spectrum, drawing votes from both sides.

2. Pressure on extremists to broaden.
Top Two doesn’t eliminate extremism, but it makes purity tests riskier and broad appeal more valuable. Studies show that those elected under a Top Two or similar system, as compared to those chosen in partisan primaries, are more likely to
moderate their roll call votes in the House of Representatives A similar pattern
holds in the state legislatures of California and Washington relative to other
western states.

Higher engagement and turnout.

When a single primary ballot is open to everyone, more people participate in a meaningful way. Combining both parties together into one election can by itself come close to doubling the number of voters in a common framework. In addition, the meaningfulness of the contest draws in less engaged citizens. In California, total turnout went up immediately by 6 percentage points over levels in the past and by 2022 had spiked up by 10 percentage points. Democracy has been enlarged.

California’s Current Oddity

Admittedly, Top Two elections raise the possibility of weird outcomes. Swalwell’s withdrawal from California’s gubernatorial race leaves four principal candidates on the same ballot. President Trump has endorsed Steve Hilton over Republican Sheriff Chad Bianco. On the Democratic side, wealthy progressive Tom Steyer and former representative Katie Porter are currently ahead in the polls. Very likely, one of them will race Hilton in November.

But two outside possibilities titillate the media:

• No Republican November.
  If Steyer and Porter outpoll Hilton by neatly splitting the vote in this deep blue state, Republicans could be shut out of the general election entirely. With no top-of-ticket candidate, many GOP voters might stay home, damaging down-ballot Republicans. An already near one-party system could become even more so.

• All-Republican November.
  Or Bianco, appealing to anti-Trump Republicans, independents, and some Democrats, could draw just enough support to push both him and Hilton into the top two—yielding a November race with no Democrat on the ballot.

Neither scenario is likely. But those defending the status quo try to discredit Top Two by insisting it might happen. What they ignore is the deep-seated anti-democratic reality of the partisan primary system. Under that system, the real decision often happens long before the November election of greatest importance to most voters.

Who Backs Top Two—and Who Fears It

It’s telling who lines up for and against primary reform.

In California, it was a middle-of-the road Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger who persuaded voters to enact an initiative forcing the adoption of Two Top in 2010. After its adoption, it was Schumer who has said it would “undo tendencies toward default extremism.”

A similar split appeared when the constitutionality of Top-Two primaries was challenged before the Supreme Court. Seven of the nine justices found no reason to impose their will on the State of Washington, but conservative Antonin Scalia argued it violated a party’s right as a private association to organize its own affairs: “There is no state interest behind this law except the Washington Legislature’s dislike for bright-color partisanship, and its desire to blunt the ability of political parties with non-centrist views to endorse and advocate their own candidates.”

Scalia’s argument was used to defend partisan primaries during the Jim Crow era. At that time, racists in southern states defended “white primaries” on the grounds that private organizations, including parties, could exclude whomever they pleased. The tactic succeeded until the Supreme Court struck them down in 1944.

Today’s partisan primaries are no longer racist, but they rest on a similar premise: that the path to office should run through a narrow, partisan gate.

Time to Retire Partisan Primaries

Partisan primaries are not a sacred pillar of democracy. They were established in another era for dubious purposes and now function as engines of voter suppression, political polarization, and gates controlled by the those at the political edge. Top Two is not a cure-all. It can yield odd matchups and does not guarantee the outcome of any particular election. But compared with the status quo, it:

• Involves more voters and earlier.

• Gives moderates a genuine shot.

• Makes it harder for small factions to hijack major parties.

• Moves the real contest back toward November.

California shows that this is not theoretical: you can run primaries that engage a cross-section of the voters, and doing so can nudge politics toward higher turnout and less extremism. Even without Swalwell, California’s Top Two primary is a thriller.

It’s time to retire partisan primaries and let all voters, and all candidates, compete together on the same ballot.

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

While high school GPAs have been gliding upwards for years, college admissions officers have relied on Advanced Placement (AP) exams as a more stable, rigorous measure of college readiness. That confidence is now misplaced—at least for most of the exams that dominate the AP landscape.

The College Board has phased in a new scoring system that has inflated student results on nine of the most frequently taken AP exams. The share of students receiving the top score of 5 on these exams has jumped by an average of 61 percent in just four years. The share receiving a passing score (3 or higher) has risen by 37 percent.

Some less common AP exams still appear to function as reliable indicators of high academic achievement. But for the most popular exams, high school counselors and college admissions committees must go beyond a quick glance at the AP scores listed on an application. They now need to look closely at which AP exams a student took, and in which years.

Trevor Packer, the senior vice president in charge of AP programs, denies that any score inflation has occurred. He has described the claim that AP is being “dumbed down” as “entirely false.” This essay explains how the scoring system has changed, demonstrates that inflation has occurred, and shows why the official denials are misleading.

To read more about my analysis of AP’s new scoring system, read my full blog post at Education Next.

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government at Harvard University.

Luka Pavikjevikj provided research assistance.

“Look, yeah, I’m open [to renaming March 31]. . . We’re just going to have to reflect on . . . a farm workers movement and a labor movement that was much bigger than one man and celebrate that.”

Gavin Newsom, California Governor

“We are honoring the workers because . . . that is who needs to be recognized. When we talk about Farmworkers Day, we do more education and acknowledgement of . . . what they fought for.”

Lorena Garcia, state representative, Colorado

The federal angle

California will close its state offices on the 31^st of March, Cesar Chavez’s birthday. But in the wake of revelations about sexual abuses by the leader of the United Farm Workers of America, the holiday’s appellation is changing to “Farmworkers Day.” Colorado is making a similar change. A bright spot in the harrowing Cavez story is its reminder that both states and the federal government have the sovereign power to declare certain days worthy of special recognition.

Self-designated holidays are especially popular among those states prone to eulogize their distant past. Hawaii’s long history is thrice celebrated on “Prince Kuhio Day,” “King Kamehameha I Day,” and “Statehood Day.” Texans celebrate both the day they declared their independence from Mexico, and the time and place, “San Jacinto,” where Sam Houston defeated a Mexican army. Alaska sets aside a special day to honor William Seward, Secretary of State under an unpopular president, Andrew Johnson. The appellation honors Seward’s far-sightedness as he bore insults from a hostile press—”Seward’s Folly,” it was called—when acquiring a massive stretch of northern landscape from the Russians in 1867 for $7.2 million.

Thankfully, Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, February 12^th, remains a holiday in his home state of Illinois after the federal government made the dubious decision to call the third Monday of that month “President’s Day.” The Prairie State also gives tribute to the Polish count, Casimir Pulaski, by giving state workers a day off on the date of his birth. An advocate of horses as offensive weapons in wartime, Pulaski is credited for founding the American Cavalry; his brave charge at the battle of Brandywine is said to have saved the life of Geroge Washington. His exploits remained under-appreciated until Poles migrated to the Chicago area in great numbers toward the end of the 19^th Century.

Not every state celebrates its past. California’s holiday list includes neither a reference to the Gold Rush nor the Bear Republic nor any other historic event prior to the farmworker’s movement. New York seems to be too busy making money to celebrate either its early Dutch history or take note of its struggles with Canadians on Lake Champlain and near Niagara Falls. Neither Wisconsin nor Michigan acknowledge the French explorations of their rivers and lakes.

Still, state festivals and memorials are the norm, not the exception. Louisiana and Alabama celebrate “Mardi Gras” on the eve of each Lenten season. On “Pioneer Day,” Utah gives due appreciation to the arrival at Salt Lake of the caravans of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Alabama and South Carolina mourn the “lost cause” on “Confederate Memorial Day,” while South Carolina does the same on the date the state’s hero, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, was killed.

States can call federal holidays by their own sobriquet, if they wish. In Maine, New Mexico and Vermont, Columbus is held in such disrepute the preferred nom de guerre is “Indigenous People’s Day.” Virginia heralds Columbus, but it also designates the second Monday in October as “Yorktown Victory Day” in memory of the defining Revolutionary War battle fought on its shores.

“Returns day,” the nonpareil among state holidays, commemorates the announcement of election results in Sussex County, Delaware two days after the November elections. The state allows government employees in the county half a day off so they can attend a parade in Georgetown, the county seat. The event recalls the times when people from across Sussex traveled to Georgetown to cast their ballot, then returned two days later to learn the official outcomes. Winners and losers met to “bury the hatchet,” quite literally, in specially selected Delaware sand, then parade in the same buggy from South Bedford Street to the courthouse.

We should have more such occasions for the expression of bipartisanship. And may state holidays continue to express the vitality of a federal division of power between states and a national government in Washington, D.C.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

“It will guarantee the midterms. “If you don’t get it, big trouble, my opinion. . . . I don’t think we should approve anything until this is approved.”

Donald Trump, president

“[This is] one of the most despicable pieces of legislation I’ve come across in the many years I’ve been a legislator. . . Nothing is more important than defeating this dagger to the heart of our democracy.”

Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, Senate (Dem.)

The federal angle

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer claims that a voter identification (ID) law would destroy democracy. Yet Australia, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, and Ireland, and nearly all other democracies demand documentary proof of voter identity. In fact, 71% of the 246 countries and other jurisdictions across the world have strict “voter ID laws [that require] photo ID cards.” Using the filibuster to block common-sense legislation consistent with widely accepted democratic practices defies common sense.

Worse, the Republican claim that SAVE is necessary to save the country from election malpractice. Ineligible voters have very little incentive to break the law by casting a ballot, and eligible voters have even less reason to cast multiple ballots. One vote is hardly likely to determine the outcome of an election, and one illegal vote, if discovered, could lead to a fine or time in jail. The conservative Heritage Foundation’s tally of legally determined election fraud shows “1,546 proven instances” over many years. That’s hardly a democratic crisis.

Academic studies of the effect of ID laws on election outcomes seldom detect differences of a magnitude that could affect outcomes of any but the closest of elections. A 2014 study found that Kentucky voters, when informed of a recently enacted voter ID law, were more likely to vote, though by only one percentage point. Another study found the net effect of ID laws on turnout worked to the advantage of Republicans in primary elections — but not in general elections. When another team of scholars analyzed the same data with better methods, they found the data so uncertain one could reach the conclusion that either party could be a tiny net beneficiary of ID laws.

The potential effect of SAVE on election outcomes has been estimated by looking at the demographic characteristics and partisan affiliations of voters who might be affected by the law. A Washington Post survey found rural voters were less likely to have passports, suggesting that Republicans, with their strong base in less populated areas, would suffer disproportionately. Others who were likely to be adversely affected include those who were “male, working-class and first-time voters,” groups who “have lower education levels and less access to documentation.” Those demographic groups that also have become increasingly Republican in their voting habits. The Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement (CDCE) at the University of Maryland conducted a survey that showed 2% of adults lacked proof of citizenship. Men were nearly three times as likely as women to say they lacked an ID. But they also found that Democrats who voted in 2020 were 3 percentage points more likely to say they lacked easy access to proof of citizenship than comparable Republicans. The authors concluded that “many Americans of all political identities lack” documentary proof of citizenship.” It calls for more research to “understand how, if at all, the SAVE Act would impact election outcomes.”

Stanford turnout expert Justin Grimmer gives three explanations for why voter ID laws make little difference:

1) Most voting rules, including ID laws, are “relevant only to a small number of people.” Most people carry IDs — driver license, food stamp card, or some alternative — to purchase their groceries, rent an apartment, open a bank account, or purchase gasoline. The University of Maryland team estimates that only two percent of the potential electorate lacks documentation.

2) Voters who have no ID “may fail to vote for more reasons” than just a lack of documentation. They may be poorly educated, socially isolated, and disengaged from politics, factors that depress the chances of turning out on election day even if the rules do not require a driver’s license or some other proof of citizenship. In these circumstances the ID makes no difference.

3) Laws fall equally on voters of both parties. Should “voter ID laws decrease turnout by a small percentage, these laws [would] affect [both] . . . Democrats and Republicans.” Only the differential effect gives one party an advantage. Given the limited effects and the uncertainty of just which voters would be most affected, it is “impossible for lawmakers to predict accurately” the impact of the legislation they are considering. Thus, Senate Democrats don’t know whether they are fighting against their own political interests, and neither do Senate Republicans.

Still, it is important to find a way to reach bipartisan consensus in support of a national law that requires voter ID documentation, as establishing that principle could help restore the country’s trust in its electoral system. According to the Yankelovich Center at the University of California at San Diego, trust that “votes will be counted accurately nationwide” declined from 71% before the 2024 election to 60% in February 2026. The downward trend was noticeable for was especially large for Democrats. Another survey found similar results when it asked whether the person interviewed was confident “your state/local government will run a fair election.” It found confidence declined from 76% in 2024 to 66% in early 2026. That a third of the population lacks confidence in its electoral system is just one facet of the rising distrust of governmental institutions since the beginning of the 21^st Century.

The SAVE bill need not be partisan. Enacting a voter ID requirement by an overwhelming bipartisan vote would take a big step toward restoring trust in elections.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

“The Democrats are far more likely to win the Midterms, and the next Presidential Election, if we don’t do the Termination of the Filibuster (The Nuclear Option!), because it will be impossible for Republicans to get Common Sense Policies done with these Crazed Democrat Lunatics being able to block everything by withholding their votes.”

Donald Trump, President

“John Cornyn is a coward. He is SILENT about abolishing the filibuster.”

Ken Paxton, Senatorial Candidate, Texas (Rep.)

“There has really been sort of an evolution in my own thinking. … After careful consideration, I support whatever changes to Senate rules that may prove necessary for us to get the SAVE America Act and homeland security funding past the Democrats’ obstruction, through the Senate, and on the president’s desk for his signature.”

John Cornyn, Senator, Texas (Rep.)

The federal angle.

Senate Republicans are in a conundrum. They want to pass the SAVE bill, which would impose a voter identification mandate, but Republican leaders cannot collect the 60 votes needed to end a Democratic filibuster. To pass the bill, Republicans could change the cloture rule so that debate can be ended with a majority vote, but that would end a long tradition of bipartisan governance in Congress’s upper chamber.

Congressional bipartisanship is spooked by scarecrows that appear as primary season begins. Frightened by primaries, members of the Senate and the House dare not work across the partisan aisle out of fear they will be called cowards or traitors.

Texas Senator John Cornyn is the current case in point. A member of the Republican leadership team in the Senate, he has steadfastly supported the 60-vote cloture rule. Now he has had a change of heart. The Senator explains his shift as a response to Democratic promises they will eliminate the filibuster and pass radical legislation should they gain control of the upper chamber. He now says it is more important to pass the SAVE bill than to sustain a long-standing Senate tradition essential for bipartisan policy making. Cornyn’s devilish conversion takes place just as he enters a close, head-to-head primary run-off against MAGA favorite Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general.

It is not just Cornyn who is afraid of defeat by the goblins who haunt primary elections. Fear of defeat is an occupational disease on Capitol Hill, though only one Senator has been beaten in any primary since 2016 and those in office have numerous electoral advantages. Name recognition, war chests, paid staff to help organize their campaigns, and opportunities to do favors for constituents all help incumbents squelch their opposition.

Such tools are also available to members of the House of Representatives as well. Apart from 2022, they suffered an average of just six defeats in primaries held since 2016. Fifteen representatives lost their position in 2022, but those losses were largely due to changes in district boundaries that pitted some members against one another.

Senators do not worry about reapportionment, because state boundaries never change.

Still, senators run scared. Even if re-election is virtually assured, members kowtow to constituents and campaign desperately to avoid losing what many consider a life-time position.

Senators are especially frightened by strong primary opponents, because very few votes are cast in these elections. The all-time high primary share of the vote in mid-term elections, reached in 2022, was 21%, but that was still less than a third of the proportion cast in recent presidential elections. Even 21% overstates the proportion needed to win when each party holds its own primary, as is the case in Texas. Just 11% of Texas registered voters cast ballots for the Republican candidates running in the first primary round. Although Cornyn won, he got no more than 5% of the vote. Whether the run-off between Cornyn and Paxton goes one way or the other, it will certainly be decided by a tiny fraction of the electorate. With just a few voters casting ballots, extreme candidates have a chance to control the outcome.

Democratic zealots are equally active. In Michigan’s upcoming primary, progressive Abdul El-Sayed has propelled himself into a dead-heat in the polls. It is unclear whether or not he can turn the backing of Bernie Sanders into a primary victory, but if he wins, it will be due in part to the small segment of the electorate participating in the election.

Effectively, primaries are decided by the few, opening the door to those at the extremes of their party. Yet the impacts on bipartisanship go beyond the outcome of these internal party contests. Even when moderates win, they find themselves under pressure to withhold support for anything the opposition party has to offer and to vote against the institutions that preserve cross-party co-operation. Most Senate Democrats have committed themselves to kill the filibuster once they regain control of the Senate. Republicans are under increasing pressure to do the same, though two stalwart centrists—Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)—plus 2 retiring senators (Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) and Thom Tillis (North Carolina)—still oppose cloture at any less than a 60% vote.

Meanwhile, President Trump insists that passage of the SAVE bill is more important than preservation of the filibuster. He promises not to sign any legislation until SAVE passes, and he has so far withheld an endorsement of Cornyn. The rhetoric may be another presidential bluff, but unless Trump backs Cornyn, the president runs a serious risk of ensuring a Paxton nomination in May, a victory for rising Democratic star James Talarico in November, and the last vote Republicans need to maintain control of the Senate for the final two years of his presidency. If that should happen, primary ghosts will dance over the grave the president has dug for his own domestic policy agenda.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

Maura Healey, Massachusetts Governor: “We are so proud that our students are yet again leading the nation in AP scores and breaking all-time records. . . Apples to apples, student to student, across the country, Massachusetts students are at the top, as I want them to be.”

Sara Sympson, College Board: “This refinement strengthens the accuracy of our scoring. . . In fact, AP standards for qualifying scores remain more stringent than grading standards in many college classrooms.”

Frederick Hess, American Enterprise Institute: “Students and families are happier because they get college credit. . . Schools are happier because they look good. Governors and state agencies are happier because they get to brag about it.”

Pedro Martinez, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education: “We’ll look into anything that might be a discrepancy.”

The federal angle

The Massachusetts Board of Education is celebrating the highest scores any state has ever received on Advanced Placement (AP) examinations, tests used for college admissions and substitutes for college courses. Seemingly, students are better prepared for college than ever before.

Were it only so. Unfortunately, the higher scores are due to easier AP tests, not more learned students. The College Board, the agency in charge of AP exams, admits its questions are easier and passing scores have been lowered on key tests like the English Language exam. They justify the easier tests as an adjustment to a less demanding curriculum in high school and lowered expectations by colleges and universities. In other words, AP is simply adapting to a broad decline in educational standards.

Sadly, the College Board is not wrong in its claims about lowered standards in high school and college. Grade Point Averages (GPAs) in high school climbed over a half a grade level from about a “B –“ to over a “B +” between 1985 and 2020, according to an analysis of data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). College grades are being inflated at about the same rate.

A three-university team of economists has taken a careful look at the detrimental effects of grade inflation for high school students. They examined teacher grading practices in Los Angeles between 2004 and 2013 and in Maryland between 2013 and 2023. Students taught by teachers who boost grades by one grade level higher than the average teacher are less likely to finish high school and are less likely to enroll in college. They are more likely to be unemployed, and their earnings are lower. The cost to any one student of having just one such teacher runs around $100 a year for the first six years after graduation. Taking into account the many students taught by each teacher, the numbers add up. The scholars estimate the annual price paid by all students taught by an inflation-prone teacher of average-length career and an average number of students in the classroom comes to $213,872. The societal costs are substantial.

To provide apple-to-apple comparisons across teachers, the researchers compared teachers working at the same school in the same year. They adjusted for student performance in 8^th grade and various background characteristics.

Teacher ethnic and gender characteristics are not correlated with grade leniency, but weaker teachers are more likely to inflate grades than more effective ones. Also, those at the beginning of their career are more likely to be lenient than those with more classroom experience. Grade inflation may be used to ease students’ disappointment with their class or as a mask to disguise how little has been taught.

The research team distinguishes between average inflation across all students and “passing inflation,” giving a “D” rather than an “F”. As said, nothing good comes from overall grade inflation. When average grades are inflated across the board, students are less likely to finish high school, go to college, and earn as much as they would otherwise. Passing inflation has some short-term benefits. When students pass, it helps their self-esteem, lowers absence rates, and reduces chances of dropping out. But the study finds little benefit of a passing grade on college enrollment or wages.

The study provides no support for the decade-by-decade grade inflation the College Board’s AP program accepts as inevitable. For the sake of future students, the College Board, state education boards and commissioners, elite universities, and other standard setting institutions must halt this debilitating trend in American education. Harvard is talking about taking steps to halt its steep inflation rate, but exactly what actions will be taken remains unclear. It is tempting to blame individual teachers, but they worry their students will be placed at a disadvantage if they set strict grading standards when others do not. It will take strong leadership to reverse direction.

The documentation of the harm that comes from grade inflation is a strong first step to resetting the nation’s standards. An important step toward that goal has now been taken.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

President Trump: “Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary.”

Elizabeth Warren, U. S. Senator (MA): “Donald Trump’s single-handedly starting another war with Iran is . . . illegal. . . The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war.”

The federal angle

The United States has two presidents: one is for domestic matters, the other for foreign affairs. The politics in the two domains are profoundly different. Whereas the domestic president is hemmed in by Congress, the courts, and the federal system, few constraints limit the foreign policy president’s exercise of executive power.

So it is with Trump. His domestic agenda has already run its course. With great effort, he finally secured congressional passage of the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB). But the law kept taxes at current levels, except for small cuts for specific groups like restaurant workers and senior citizens. BBB added needed dollars to the defense budget, and a small amount was deducted from the Medicaid budget. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, revenues from taxes, tariffs and fees as a percentage of GDP remain the same for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 and expenditures edge up from 23.1 to 23.3 percent of GDP. In other words, the last session of Congress was marked by heated accusations and government shutdowns, but in the end the fiscal situation barely changed. Similarly, action on immigration has been limited to re-establishing border controls. A badly needed legislative solution to immigration policy remains out of reach, and ICE deportations of undocumented aliens is frustrated by intense opposition from state and local governments. Trump is unlikely to fight any more battles like the one in Minnesota.

Trump’s ability to act on domestic issues will worsen after the midterm elections if prediction markets are accurate. Both they and objective observers say Trump will lose the House of Representatives, and his chances of holding the Senate are sliding.

But if the country’s domestic president is headed nowhere for the next three years, its foreign policy president is marching across the globe. Trump has kickstarted Europe into contributing to its own defense. The United States is asserting itself in the western hemisphere from Greenland to Argentina with multiple stops along the way. The narcotics-dealing, Russian-leaning president of Venezuela is now locked in a prison cell watching the country’s oil wells return to their U. S. owners. Communist Cuba is trembling for lack of energy, and pro-American parties scored victories in Chile and Argentina.

In the Middle East, the United States, teamed up with Israel, has shattered Hamas and Hezbollah, opening the door to the overthrow of Russian-backed Bashar al-Assad in Syria. They have eliminated the top echelon of the self-proclaimed Twelver Shi’a Islamic Republic, destroying that regimes’ capacity to pursue political and religious dominance in the region. The Islamic Republic’s desperate use of massive drone attacks to widen the war is pushing Arab nations into an alliance with the United States.

Trump’s adventures are not escaping domestic criticism. Congressional Democrats argue that only Congress has the power to declare war. But the claim that Trump is acting illegally ignores the 1936 ruling by a conservative Supreme Court, which gave liberal Franklin Roosevelt “the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power [to act] . . . as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.” The president, it said, has “a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. . . . He, not Congress, has the better opportunity of knowing the conditions which prevail in foreign countries.”

Backed by that seminal declaration of presidential power in foreign affairs, presidents do not hesitate to act independently of Congress when they think the national interest requires it. Truman launched a “police action” in Korea. Kennedy and Johnson sent troops to fight in Viet Nam. Clinton bombed Bosnia, Reagan invaded Grenada, and Obama bombed Libya. None of these presidents asked Congress for permission.

In 1974. Congress passed a resolution requiring presidents seek congressional approval if hostilities last beyond sixty days. But presidents refuse to sign the resolution, so it lacks the force of law.

Trump will most likely focus on his role as foreign policy president throughout the remainder of his term. Frustrated on domestic issues, he will try to establish his place in history by showing success on the international stage. He hopes to pressure the Ukraine and the Russians into reaching a truce neither side prefers. He will seek to expand the U. S. military base in Greenland, safeguard the Panama Canal from Chinese intrusions, and look for other opportunities to advance the U. S. presence in the Western hemisphere. He will back Taiwan in its confrontations with China. He will push for an accommodation between Israel and moderate Arab states. He will attempt to destroy the Islamic Republic.

It’s far from certain that Trump will achieve any of these objectives, but foreign policy presidents today have certain advantages predecessors lacked. Given modern technology, they can pursue their objectives without putting “boots on the ground.” Enemy leaders must be wary, as they are personally at risk in ways they have not been in the past. The U. S. economy is growing much more rapidly than in other industrial nations. Yet the American public does not like military casualties and prolonged foreign conflict. Truman and Johnson paid a high price for Korea and Viet Nam. The irony of foreign policy presidents is that politics concedes them wide latitude but holds them and their party accountable.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

JD Vance: “For years we have been told everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values, everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy, but when we see European courts cancelling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others we ought to ask ourselves if we are holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard.. . . If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter is there anything you can do for the American people.”

Marco Rubio: “We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength…. This is why we Americans may sometimes come off a little direct . . . The reason why, my friends, is because we care deeply.”

The federal angle

Not much divides JD Vance and Marco Rubio substantively speaking, but their styles separate them as they pursue their climbs to the Republican summit in 2028. Their recent European speeches delineate their respective courses. Vance scolds the European community for its dereliction of duty and violations of minority rights, while Rubio pleads with Europeans to strengthen their commitment to a common cause.

Identifying substantive differences between the Vice-President and the Secretary of State requires microscopic vision. Both affirm deportation of the undocumented, cheer the change of top leadership in Venezuela, insist Europe assume responsibility for its defense, back a dominant U. S. presence in Greenland, favor tariffs as a diplomatic weapon, express distaste for abuses in elite education, and adhere fully to the Trump Administration’s domestic agenda. Both enjoy stable marriages that personify strong commitments to family and faith.

But as Oscar Wilde astutely observed, “In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing,” The inner, hidden, secret beliefs of the two Republican leaders are unknown, but any political observer can detect their style.

Style is structured in part by the office each holds. Where one seems to stand is determined by where one sits. By tradition, it is the Vice-President who rips the opposition and champions the occupant of the Oval Office. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State is Diplomat-in-Chief, the one appointed to soften blows and consolidate friendships. When speaking to Europeans, Vance and Rubio can be understood as doing no more than what official positions required.

Stances taken toward elite universities are also dictated in part by place in government. Vance, the president’s spokesman, tells conservatives that “universities in our country are fundamentally corrupt and dedicated to deceit and lies, not to the truth.” Rubio remains mostly silent, but his actions hint a preference for a softer line. Under his direction, the Department of State rank-and-file hand passports to almost all those admitted to American universities. International student enrollment at U. S. universities declined by only 1 percent this academic year.

Office makes a difference, but deeper forces rooted in distinctive religious experiences are at work as well. Vance was an irregular church-going Protestant who flirted with atheism in his college years before he converted to Catholicism, while Rubio is a long-standing, broad-minded traditionalist who attends both Catholic and Protestant services.

Vance’s conversions go beyond the religious sphere. In society, he switched from upper- middle-class aspirant to working class spokesman: After attaining a prestigious Yale law degree, he rediscovered his “Hillbilly” roots in Appalachia. By contrast, Rubio quietly attended Santa Fe Community College before completing undergraduate and legal studies in Florida, then built his career from the ground up within the Florida Cuban community.

Both men were late to join the Trump bandwagon. Vance explains his change of heart from never-Trumpism to MAGA enthusiasm in this way: “I allowed myself to focus so much on the stylistic element of Trump that I completely ignored” the fact he “was offering something very different on foreign policy, on trade, on immigration.” Rubio’s switch requires no justification. As he was a candidate for president himself, he was hardly expected to endorse an opponent until he withdrew from the race.

The hills on which the two candidates march have distinctive contours. Rubio, if nominated, would constitute a formidable Republican nominee in the 2028 general election campaign. He has the heritage needed to solidify Republican in-roads in the Hispanic community, the international experience of a diplomat, and the standing, vetting, and knowhow of a former candidate for the presidency. But the outspoken Vance is rapidly emerging as the unstoppable MAGA favorite for the Republican party nomination. If the president abandons him, or the country abandons the president, Vance could slip from his dominant position within the party. As for the general election, his political style—too hasty, too critical, too passionate, too righteous—could complicate his final ascent to the summit.

Refusing to place a bet on either candidate. Trump recognizes the value of two candidates advancing up separate valleys. Each represents one aspect of the master commander now in office. Vance embodies the president’s crusading zeal, Rubio his realistic recognition of the limits of U. S.—and presidential--power.

When it comes to substantive policy, there is little to choose between the Republican all-stars. But style is informative—and vital.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

Analilia Mejia Senior Advisor: “Voters in New Jersey’s 11th District will have a clear choice. A candidate like Mejia, who believes in an economy that works for everyone, raising the minimum wage, fighting for universal healthcare, . . . or a MAGA Trump extremist focused on undermining our democracy.”

Joe Hathaway, Republican nominee: “Mejia has spent her career leading an organization that has called for defunding the police, demonizing our Jewish neighbors, and pushing economic policies that will drain the bank accounts of hardworking New Jersey families.”

Primary votes cast in 11^th District, New Jersey, (93% of votes reported):

Winner: Analilia Mejia, 18,574 votes (29%)

Tom Malinowski 17,077 (28%)

Tahesha Way 11,077 (17%)

Brendan Gill 9,142 (14%),

8 other candidates.

The federal angle

Like a Picasso line drawing, special elections can etch a clear pattern often obscured by multi-faceted political complexities. Exhibit A: the stunning upset victory by Analilia Mejia in a special Democratic primary election in New Jersey’s District 11.

Home to Montclair, Madison, Rockaway and other upscale bedroom suburbs, the district has an ethnic mix of roughly 60 percent white, 20 percent Hispanic, 10 percent Asian and 6 percent black. Its medium household income is a handsome $140,000. Harris captured 53 percent of the vote in the 2020 election.

With her last-minute, come-from-behind leap aboard a victorious progressive train, Mejia seems headed for participation in a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives next November. District 11’s election proves the left-wing can pick up passengers outside university enclaves or leftist strongholds in California and Vermont. Across the country, the left is challenging Democratic party regulars that appear more interested in patronage and power than ideological purity.

Mejia’s squeak-through victory demonstrates the fundamental strategy steering the Democratic progressive engine: Mobilize your base, split the opposition, and claim party traditions for yourself. The classic theorist of leftist political organization, Vladimir Lenin, put it this way:

We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance under their fire. We have combined . . . for the purpose of fighting the enemy and not of retreating into the marsh. [We expect others to] reproach us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and . . . chosen the path of struggle instead of . . . conciliation. . . We . . . fight not only against the marsh but also against those who are turning towards the marsh.

Lenin claimed it made no difference whether he lacked a majority in the country; or a majority within the party; or, indeed, a majority even within a specific place, like New Jersey’s District 11. A disciplined, professional organization can march through a marsh and turn the marsh into a launching pad toward general victory.

Only a few joined the progressive march in New Jersey’s special election. Of the 665,000 residents over the age of 18 in District 11, just 30,000 cast a vote for Mejia. No more than 12%of the district’s eligible population cast a ballot; less than one-third of the voters chose Mejia; she won with less than 5%of the district’s potential vote.

New Jersey’s District 11 is hardly a left-wing bastion. Its previous representative, Mickie Sherrill, succeeded in winning the state’s gubernatorial chair by running to the middle. Tom Malinowski, the man Mejia defeated, had been a party loyalist in Congress. According to Micah Rasmussen, a political analyst at Rider University, Mejia “got in the race late, raised significantly less money, and just set her sights on turning out every progressive voter.” Mejia ended up with a larger share of the vote cast on election day than in pre-election, mail-in ballots. Regulars lacked the cohesiveness to watch, draw together, and fight on behalf of their strongest candidate.

When a low-energy opposition is split in multiple directions, progressives can win in low turn-out primaries, but will those primary victories cost Democrats control of the House next November? Precedent says a Democratic victory in the upcoming general election is all but assured. The non-presidential party gains an average of 27 seats in mid-term elections, picking up seats on all but three occasions over the past 100 years. The pattern persists, political scientists say, because partisans who lose a presidential election seek revenge the next time around, while those who elected the incumbent president, relax and fail to turn out at the same rate in the next election.

History says the current four-seat Republican margin in the current House is more endangered than the northern white rhinoceros. But this year Republican chances are enhanced both by a rising number of gerrymandered safe seats and congressional redistricting in Texas, North Carolina and Indiana. According to the non-partisan Cook Political Report, the number of seats that are either safe or likely to vote Democratic fall seven seats short of the magic 218 it takes to name the Speaker of the House. Eighteen districts are said to be toss-ups; if they split 50-50, Democrats gain control of the chamber.

Though the prediction markets give Democrats an 80 percent chance of winning the House, every seat counts. Before Mejia’s victory, the Cook Report considered District 11 in New Jersey to be a safe Democratic seat, but Republican nominee Joe Hathaway says Mejia’s “far-left politics are way out of step with District 11 values.” Just how safe will it be after national Republicans pour millions into the Hathaway campaign?

If District 11 signals growing progressive strength, that wing of the party could control the House agenda next year. But if ultra-progressives like Mejia continue to win hotly contested primaries in the coming months, they could turn safe seats into problematic ones. One can no longer totally discount the possibility that Trump will be more pleased with the results than the prediction markets expect.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

President Trump: Governor Tim Walz called me with the request to work together. . . .It was actually a very good call. . . .What we are looking for are any and all Criminals that they have in their possession.” Tom Homan, the Administration’s immigration boss Tom Homan says he hopes to reach an agreement with local officials, but Trump, when asked if he was backing down, insisted: “No, no. Not at all.”

Governor Walz: “I know they’re not going to keep their word. . . . [But] I am looking for a way forward. . . . I’m going to fight this to the very end.” This is a “violation of human rights.”

Homan: “Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals.”

Hennepin Count (Minneapolis) Sherrif: “If there is to be meaningful, consistent, and lasting change across all Minnesota jails, it must come through clear statewide policy direction.”

The federal angle

According to the old, seemingly extinct doctrine of nullification, states could declare federal laws null and void within their jurisdiction. When President John Adams jailed editors for violation of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, Virginia, at the behest of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, declared the Acts null and void. By defending citizen rights and liberties, the Jeffersonians enjoyed the moral high ground, but the doctrine of nullification would later be used to justify the southern secession from the Union. If states can declare federal laws null and void, they also have the right to declare independence. Only after millions of Americans died was the insidious doctrine of nullification buried seemingly for good.

But, today, eleven states and the District of Columbia are once again declaring federal laws null and void on the grounds they violate citizen rights and liberties. States and cities are asking police officers and local sheriffs to refuse co-operation with ICE when undocumented persons are arrested. The police burden is handed over to ICE, a small federal agency originally expected to concentrate enforcement of immigration law at U. S. borders and ports of entry. Its law enforcement officers number about 22,000, many inexperienced and others assigned administrative duties. ICE deployment of 3,000 officers in Minnesota consumes about 15 percent of the agency’s capacity. By comparison, state and local governments have 650,000 law enforcement officers, 30 times the number available to ICE.

In Minnesota, ICE is assuming a police function for which it is neither suited nor trained. Two protestors have been killed either willfully or stupidly or in panic. The Trump Administration’s attempts to defend the killings are inexcusable. Recent hints at moderation by both Trump and Walz will hopefully end this ugly modern revival of the old, destructive doctrine of nullification. Yet both sides hold to their original positions.

Walz insists Minnesota is co-operating with federal law enforcement agencies. But the non-partisan Prison Policy initiative reports that between May 21 and October 15, 2025, just 5 suspected illegal immigrants for every one hundred thousand residents entered ICE custody from jails or other lock-ups. In addition, according to a New York Timesanalysis, “no one was transferred from the state’s . . . jail in Hennepin County.”

The Minnesota rate of 5/100,000 is roughly the same as those for New York and California, but it is much lower than rates of 20 for Iowa and 35 for Arizona. In red border states, where ICE-police co-operation is routine, undocumented apprehension rates from jails reach rates of 39 and 64, respectively. In other words, the sanctuary version of the doctrine of nullification is having real consequences for undocumented residents—and for the enforcement of federal law.

Sadly, ICE is enforcing immigration law with ruthlessness not essential to the Administration goal of curbing illegal in-migration. Untrained, inexperienced ICE officers search for the undocumented on streets, sidewalks and places of employment. If criminals are the problem, the solution is not the arrest of working people, no matter how undocumented. So nauseating are ICE actions they invoke in Minnesota a new form of protest, the chase of ICE officials with whistles and shouts. ICE responds willy-nilly, and people die.

So, one might declare sanctuary states a success. The Trump Administration withdraws about a third of ICE officers from Minnesota. It has no capacity to undertake any similar action in New York or California. The Democrats can declare victory when they, as expected, win control of the House of Representatives in 2026. Just as the Biden Administration’s immigration policy undermined its political viability, Trump has been hoisted upon his own petard. Those on the moral high ground have won. The near-term political results will be positive for those who favor checks and balances within the national government.

Maybe, but the sanctuary states are extracting a long-term price by invoking the ugly doctrine of nullification. The last to make similar claims were those ten southern states who followed Mississippi Senator James Eastland’s proclamation: “The South will not abide by, or obey,” Brown v. Board of Education. They signed a “southern manifesto” decrying “encroachment on the rights reserved to the states” and commending “those states which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means.”

Three years after the landmark decision, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus mobilized the National Guard to prevent nine black children from attending all-white schools in Little Rock Arkansas. The nine were not admitted until President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Guard and ordered the 101^st Airborne Division into the state to suppress potentially violent opposition. Two protestors were injured by federal troops.

Despite Eisenhower’s success in Little Rock, other southern states precluded all but minimalist desegregation, Governor George Wallace becoming the face of the resistance when he proclaimed “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” and blocked the doorway when two black students tried to register for classes at the University of Alabama.

Like Wallace, Faubus, and the southern manifesto, the sanctuary movement tight-walks a fine line between legal and illegal resistance. On the one hand, Minnesota officials, like the manifesto, do not quite call for illegal, violent resistance to federal law. On the other hand, leaders both then and now seem to condone protestors ready to confront federal power with open, armed disobedience. A promise to fight to the bitter end connotes more than just a day in court.

At a time when media attention focuses strictly on what is happening inside the Washington beltway, Minnesota offers a reminder that great power still resides at the state and local level. States slowed the pace of desegregation in the United States for many decades after Brown had been decided. Those who strut on the White House lawn can crash and burn at Hennepin Avenue and Sixth Street. But if power rests in good part at the state level, so does responsibility, something governors need to learn.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.

“Roughly 400 Medicaid businesses were started in the building behind me over the last several years,” declared Donald Trump’s Medicaid czar, Mehmet Oz, on his visit to an industrial neighborhood in Minneapolis. “They generated about $380 million of billing that you, the taxpayer, were putting up. . . . . Why did no one in the state think this was a concern? . . . I think it’s because they weren’t looking.”

The Federalist angle

Oz’s charges of corruption may just be politics. But whatever courts decide, the fracas provokes larger questions about federalism: Do state and local governments typically spend funds foolishly when they get “free” money from the feds?

For decades, grants from Washington to states and localities have been rising inexorably. As of 2021, the federal share accounted for 27 percent of state and local expenditure, up from 18% in 1993 and massively up from the 3% level existing in 1962. The larger federal role seems destined to continue going forward, as Congress has again agreed to maintain current spending levels.

Local reliance on federal grants is not advised by classic federal theory, which says each governmental tub should rest on its own bottom. Localities should ask their own residents to pay for services rendered, whether they be sanitation services, police and fire protection, or schools. It’s those taxpayers who have a vested interest in how their money is spent, and they can closely observe the outcomes of those expenditures.

The same principle applies if states provide the services, whether they be state highways, state parks, or state colleges and universities. State tax resources—whether they come from state sales taxes, state income taxes, or licensing fees—should be the principal revenue source.

When the federal government foots the bill, state and local officials may see the money as borderline costless, because the people of any one state contribute only a small amount to the total amount in federal. The federal tax revenue generated by Minnesota is 2.4% of the total federal tax collected from all states by the IRS in 2024. This means that only 2.4% of projects paid entirely by the federal government are directly paid with funds from the residents of Minnesota in 2025. In other words, if waste and abuse in a federal program in Minnesota amounts to $400 million dollars, the price tag born by Minnesotans would be just $9.6 million, not nothing—but nowhere close to the cost had the undertaking been funded by the state. Price tags vary depending on the size and wealth of a state. For Californians, a $400 billion price tag would translate into $63.2 million; for Vermonters, just $480,000.

To find out whether localities slack off when money arrives from higher tiers of government, a colleague and I examined the connection between the share of total cost paid from local tax funds and student achievement levels in a school district. We looked at patterns nationwide, and then, to get causal estimates, we zeroed in on districts that suddenly received large amounts of new money from the state. Both methods showed students learning substantially more when districts paid a higher share of educational costs.

Still, inequities can be severe when localities are asked to cover the cost of all their services. Some cities—Greenwich, Connecticut; Los Altos California; Evanston, Illinois; for example—have ample resources to pay for schools, parks, health, and welfare programs; others are less favored, burdened by low property values and dense populations of poor citizens. To avoid gross inequalities, federal and state funds are essential. In our study, we found that the more the schools relied on federal and state grants the less wide the achievement gap between rich and poor students. In other words, there is a trade-off between efficiency and equity.

The practical solution to the trade-off dilemma is to ask the federal government to concentrate its fiscal efforts on relatively simple programs that direct cash to those in need. Social security, supplemental social service, and easily cashed food stamps work well, because the administration structure for these programs is simple. More complicated programs are best left to the lower tiers of government. Ordinarily, the feds should not finance services that require large-scale co-ordination among hundreds and thousands of employees. Police, fire, schools, sanitation services and the like should be mainly financed by local dollars. To play the role of watchdog, local governments need skin in the game.

It’s not an accident that the poster child of abuse and waste in Minnesota involved a complicated pre-school program. Congress would have been better advised to have helped poor people with their childcare by giving monies directly to parents. If a complex professionally operated program is to work well, it needs to be designed and paid for locally.

__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and a professor of government at Harvard University.

­­

Source: AP Images

Most federal agencies, from the gargantuan Department of Defense to the miniscule Department of Education, cannot continue in operation unless a statute passed by Congress is signed by the president. However, the Fed is not subject to that kind of democratic control. Its operating and capital expenses are paid out of revenues generated by user fees and interest earned on monies lent to banks.

In 2015, the Fed received $100.2 billion in interest and fees, far greater than the agency’s operating costs of around $2.5 billion. The balance of $97.7 billion was gifted to the U.S. Treasury. In 2020, when revenues approximated $88.6 billion, costs came to about $2 billion, and the donation to Treasury amounted to $87 billion. The Fed has run deficits recently, due to changes in market rates and Fed policies, but the agency simply runs up interest-free debt with a promise to pay back when revenue streams return to their former level.

Takeaway: The Fed spends around $2 Billion a year in operating and capital expenses for which it is not accountable to Congress.

Independent central banks are vital to the management of complex, interdependent industrial economies. Markets must be confident that asset prices are not subject to the political whims of those more concerned about immediate electoral needs than price stability and sustained economic growth. A reasonably independent Fed has sustained fairly steady economic growth since the end of World War II, and the United States is immeasurably wealthier a result. Without an independent Fed, the dollar would not remain the world’s primary reserve currency. Even when the Fed policy wanders seriously off-track—as during the late 1970s and in the post-pandemic era—the agency’s independence reassures the public and the investor that leadership was merely mistaken, not systematically subservient to a political master.

Yet one can distinguish between independent decision making within the Fed’s open market committee and autonomy of all Fed operations. “I believe in Fed independence,” says Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, but that” does not mean insulation from following the rules. . . For years, the Fed has rebuffed congressional oversight.”

In reply, Powell claims he runs “a very careful budget process . . . we’re fully aware that we owe that to the public, and we believe we do that.” But economist Robert Levin of Dartmouth University, in a detailed, documented assessment of Fed practices, suggests that Fed notions of “careful” are as self-indulgent as those of carefree adolescents who promise they will be cautious when using the family car and credit card.

According to the Fed website, the Marriner Eccles building at 20^th and Constitution Avenue across from the Washington Mall, built during the 1930s, presents “stripped classical style, symmetrical order, and an emerging modernism that emphasize[s] clean lines and sparse ornamentation.” Official documents say this “emerging modernism” is consistent with “qualities of stability, dignity, and security” central to the Fed’s mission. We are told the rehabilitation will “provide a superior work environment to help the Board attract and retain employees, enhance productivity, and foster improvements in operating practices.”

The Fed tells us it is necessary to spend $2.5 Billion (and counting) to renovate and upgrade Eccles and a surrounding complex of lesser structures. It will not cost the taxpayer a dime, however, because the Fed will pay for the rehabilitation out of its own funds.

The project provides a window on Fed’s financial operations more generally. By paying costs from its own revenues, it escapes congressional oversight and indulges in perks and privileges at a time other government agencies face cuts.

Most agencies of the federal government reduced the size of their work force between 2010 and 2024. Overall, the number slid by about 9 percent. Meanwhile, the number of employees at Fed regional banks escalated by 25 percent, while the number working for the Fed board ratcheted up by 17 percent. Asked at a Senate hearing whether his agency was “over-staffed,” Powell finessed: “No, I would say . . . overworked maybe, not overstaffed. Everybody at the Fed works really hard.”

Perhaps it is over-work that explains the Fed average salary jump of 67 percent between 2007 and 2024--even after adjustments for inflation. By comparison, average private sector salaries (after inflation) budged upward by only 12%; those of other federal workers at large agencies crept up by 3%.

The Fed excuses higher salaries by saying no tax dollars are involved. But when money is paid to employees or used for reconstruction, instead of being given to the Treasury, the taxpayer foots the bill.

As Eccles undergoes overhaul, its moniker seems increasingly appropriate. Marriner S. Eccles, Fed chair from 1934 to 1948, like his mentor, Lord John Maynard Keynes, misguidedly thought massive increases in government spending, not expansion of the money supply, would end the depression. With the cost of the Eccles reconstruction rising to $2.5 Billion, the Fed today seems no more worried about over-expenditure than Marriner Eccles himself. Former Office of Management and Budget director Ray Vought assails the Fed for amenities that “include terrace rooftop gardens, water features, VIP elevators, and premium marble. The cost per square foot is $1,923”, he says, “double the cost for renovating an ordinary historic federal building.” By the square foot, renovating Eccles will cost twice the amount it takes to build high-end commercial space on Manhattan Island.

If Eccles is beyond fiscally responsible for repair, that would hardly be an aesthetic or historical disaster, regardless of official chirps about emerging modernism, symmetry, and wartime visits from Winston Churchill. When I last strolled along Constitution Avenue, I saw nothing other than a banal, boring, impersonal, isolative, utterly remote rectangle polluting a breathtaking landscape triangulation connecting the Lincoln Memorial to the White House to the Washington Monument.

The Board Chair, the international banking community, and the mainstream media insist the independence of the Fed must be preserved . Perhaps that’s the best case for renovating Eccles as is. That isolated, withdrawn, inaccessible entity tells me that I am looking at something quite aloof from the American people. All doors scream DO NOT ENTER HERE.

No landscapes differ more than those divided by the far end of Constitution Avenue. On one side, you find yourself gradually enticed by slightly dipping pathways into the weeping heart of the Vietnam Memorial; on the other, you walk rapidly past Eccles, wondering whether anyone has access other than by official limousine. The Fed tells us it cares more about its independence than its connection to the people.

Some may think that is for the best. An isolated Fed is what the market requires. But if it were up to me, the Eccles dinosaur would be put to the wrecking ball. Something newer, smaller, more open to the people, an innovative structure as architecturally stunning as the African American Museum just down the street, should replace it.

Fed independence is best reserved for its policy making functions, not extended to all operations. Regardless of the Machiavellian propensities of the Trump Administration, excessive institutional autonomy is not always a good thing.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and a professor of government at Harvard University.

Photo: Adobe Stock

Sewer Socialist

The sewer pejorative was coined by eastern snobs in 1910 when Social Democrat Emil Seidel was elected mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but his Brew City comrades turned the slur into a badge of honor. Indeed, the waste disposal system became the means by which the City of Milwaukee almost doubled its geographical area during the period Social Democrats were in power. Even today, Milwaukee’s sewer system is considered the “gold standard.” A massive Deep Tunnel absorbs massive amounts of wastewater and rainwater which in other cities causes flooded sidewalks and roadways during the rainy season. “Cities like New York and Toledo that didn’t build these large storage systems are faced with a lack of capacity,” says Sandra McLellan, a wastewater specialist at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. If Mamdani can become known for clogless sewers, clean streets, safe subways, and efficient garbage collection, New York, might become known, like Milwaukee once did, one of the “best-governed cities in the U.S.” (in a 1936 Time magazine cover story).

That would extend what is already a striking similarity to the Seidel and Mamdani careers thus far. Urban corruption gave both a chance to erupt overnight from political obscurity into political dominance within months. Seidel ran against a corrupt administration subject to no less than three hundred indictments. Mamdani defeated an indicted mayor and a former governor charged with alleged sexual harassment.

Both Mamdani and Seidel campaigned as genuine socialists. Looking back on his career, Seidel recalled “we wanted our workers to have pure air, we wanted them to have sunshine, we wanted planned homes, we wanted living wages; we wanted recreation for young and old; we wanted vocational education; we . . . wanted everything that was necessary to give them that: playgrounds, parks, lakes, beaches, clean creeks and rivers, swimming and wading pools.” The same phrases could be used as the preface to Mamdani’s platform of free buses, free-child care, rent control, pedestrian walkways, and biking paths.

In office, both Seidel and Mamdani face the reality that cities have limits to what they can accomplish regardless of their socialist philosophy. No matter how much they both would like to tax the rich, the reality is that many rich people are both highly mobile and politically influential. When Seidel was defeated in 1912, he himself said he lost because he had proposed an income tax. Seidel’s successors dropped that plank from the sewer socialist platform, becoming instead known for their fiscally cautious, “pay-as-you go” policies. Similarly, Mamdani campaigned for higher corporate taxes and a 2 percent increase on the taxes of those who make more than a million. Fortunately for Mamdani, his promises need approval by the New York state legislature, which is most unlikely to enact any such legislation. Even California’s progressive governor, Gavin Newsom, opposes a current initiative to tax billionaire wealth.

Affordable housing in a socialist mainstay. In 1923 the socialists launched Garden Homes, one of the first city-funded housing projects in the nation. Inspired by England’s Garden City movement, Garden Homes had single-family cottages and duplexes in a planned, landscaped setting. Some workers benefitted, and other federally funded programs were added, but the undertaking was more symbolic than substantive. Milwaukee housing stock never became more affordable. On the contrary, the city’s population grew faster than its housing stock.

Mamdani’s frozen rent scheme is an equally improbable solution to the unaffordability problem. Even if the State of New York allows the mayor to impose a rent freeze, its long-term consequence will be to adversely affect housing quality and quantity. Landlords do not maintain housing stock that yields little profit, builders will refuse to construct such housing, and the government is no longer willing to build public housing after the very name became discredited by the monstrosities built in New York during the 1950s. Mamdani’s best strategy is to pause rent increases for one year, then drop the idea.

Socialists push for more education rather than focus on enhancing the quality of schools that exist. Seidel favored vocational education, while Mamdani wants to extend childcare to parents of newborns. During the campaign, Mamdani addressed the dysfunctions of the K-12 system by proposing an elected school board rather than one appointed by himself, but within a week of his inauguration he abandoned that proposal.

Today’s urban socialists have much in common with those of the past and they certainly can learn from their predecessors. Mamdani, like Seidel, owes his explosive rise to power to the corruption of his opponents more than to the power of his ideas. But if Mamdani can provide honesty and good government like his predecessors he will succeed. Indeed, if he can deliver basic services efficiently and effectively, he can win the kind of national recognition sewer socialists achieved. Mamdani, if he governs well, could even climb the political ladder. A sewer socialist would be an attractive complement to Kamala Harris, Josh Shapiro, or any other mainstream Democrat.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and a professor of government at Harvard Univ