Why Are Democrats so Unpopular and What do They Need to do to Win.

by Rod Williams, Oct. 31, 2025 - I am a Reaganite Republican estranged from my party. I still think of myself as a Republican but I am not at home in the Republican Party of Donald Trump. I have not changed; the Republican Party has changed. I have held the same core conservative political values throughout my adult life. According to my definition of conservatism, I do not see Donald Trump as a conservative. I believe in ordered liberty, fealty to the  Constitution, due process, the rule of law, a strong national defence, collective security, America's leadership role in the world, capitalism, free trade, economic opportunity, limited government, less taxes, a balanced budget, fiscal responsibility, human dignity and a sensibility of moderation and respect for norms and traditions. I think the Donald Trump's Republican Party has abandoned most of these things.

I see Donald Trump as an unparalleled threat to American democracy. He violates the Constitution. His actions on tariffs, which contradict Article 1's stipulation that it is Congress's job to raise revenue, are but one example. His violation of due process in immigration enforcement is another. The list of evidence demonstrating Trump's authoritarian tendencies is a long list.

Given that I hold the views expressed above, what does one do? I have reached the conclusion that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, and I must prioritize stopping Trump's authoritarianism over my conservative principles. Sometimes one must make tough choices. That is why I voted for Kamala Harris in the last election. I disagree with her on almost everything. 

The nonpartisan GovTrack listed Harris as the fourth-most liberal senator from 2017 to 2019, based on a number of factors, including the bills she co-sponsored, and the second-most liberal from 2019 to 2021. She supports abortion, affirmative action, busing to desegregate public schools, access to "gender-affirming surgery" for people in federal prisons and immigration detention. She has perfect scores from liberal organizations that rate members of Congress such as Common Cause, AFL-CIO, Planned Parenthood, and Humane Rights Campaign. 

With Kamala's voting record, why did I vote for her? I viewed her as the lesser of two evils. The number one reason I voted for her is that she did not attempt a coup. I figured that is she won, we would still have a democracy and could argue policy another day.

Since Trump did win and his march toward authoritarianism is proceeding at a rapid pace, now what should one do? I think we must continue to fight him. About the only way his rush to authoritarianism can be checked is if Congress stands up to him. Republicans march in lockstep to his leadership and will not do it. They put Trump's desires over their support for the Constitution and decency. So, it is time to elect more Democrats in the midterms. I don't want a blue wave; I want just enough Democrats to be elected to hold oversight hearings and enough to block Trump. I don't want enough Democrats elected to enact their own agenda; I want enough elected to achieve gridlock.

Not only will there not be a blue wave, but with redistricting and other moves by Trump to influence the midterms, Republicans may hold the House. Almost always, the party that holds the White House loses seats  in the mid-term, but it is looking more and more like Democrats may not flip the House. Why?

Unfortunately, despite all of the trampling of the Constitution by Trump and the crudeness and cruelty of the Trump administration, Democrats remain unpopular. Real Clear Politics examines almost all legitimate polls and aggregates the data. Their most recent composite poll numbers show Democrats with an unfavorability rating of 59.6% and a favorability rating of 34.1%. 

Trump daily creates chaos. Just this week, in several cities, he replaced ICE leadership "moderates" with hardliners from US Customs and Border Patrol. Apparently, ICE is not aggressive enough in carrying out deportations. Trump tore down part of the White House without consultation with a historical commission or any entity. He just unilaterally decided to tear it down so he could build his tacky golden ballroom. His corruption continues unabated. He just shot another boat out of the waters off the coast of Venezuela without any proof that they were a threat to America and without any Congressional use of force authorization. 

Not only is Trump becoming more authoritarian and is an agent of choas, Tump is not delivering on his promise to lower prices and he is vulnerable to criticism for his cuts to Medicaid, trade wars, and tax cuts for the rich. 

Given Trump's daily chaos and his authoritarian moves, cuts to benefits, and corruption, one would think the Democrats would be more popular. Unfortunately, people like Democrats less than they do Trump and the Republicans. Democrats seem out of touch. The Democratic Party has become the party of rich coastal elitists and have lost the ability to relate to normal people. The party has lost ground with working people, those without a college degree, young men, Blacks, and Hispanics. 

If these were normal times, I would be pleased that people are tuning on Democrats and I would want Democrats to keep doing what they are doing. If these were normal times, I would be pleased that New York City is going to elect a Democratic Socialist for mayor. If these were normal times, I would be pleased that Democrats speak Wokery. 

These are not normal times. I would like for the Democratic Party to present itself as a sane, sensible, big-tent party attractive to normal people. I realize that there is a tension within the Party between those who want to move it further to the left and focus on social justice, climate change, and identity politics and those who want to focus on working-class bread-and-butter issues. Part of the dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party is that they are not woke and left-wing enough. I contend the majority of the reason the Party is unpopular is that it is too woke, and too leftist.

For those interested in the battle within the Democratic Party and what some smart people say the Democratic Party needs to do to win elections, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the new study, Deciding to Win. The study was authored by some Democratic think-tank types who you have never heard of but are well credentialed.  A lot of people you may have heard of were consulted in developing the study. I have not read the full 352-page study, but have read the 58-page condensed version. If these were normal times, I would not want Democrats to read this study, because I would not want them to win; like I have said, these are not normal times. In a future post, I will have more to say about the study. 

Top Stories

Can Democrats flip Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District?

by Rod Williams, Oct. 31, 2025- The short answer is probably not, or it's not very likely, or it's a long shot. Bruce Barry, writing in the Tennessee Outlook analyzed the district and says, "Although it wasn’t redrawn until 2022, if you look at how the 2020 presidential race would have turned out in the 7th district’s current configuration, Joe Biden would have lost it to Donald Trump by 15 points, while in 2024 Kamala Harris lost to Trump there by 22 points." Further analysis by Barry shows that it would almost take a miracle for Aftyn Behn to beat Mark Van Epps but Barry doesn't say that. 

Anyone who follows politics could have reached the same conclusion as Barry and intuitively known it is a long shot for a Dem to take the 7th. Barry explains why and looks at some numbers. I don't know that a more moderate candidate could have had a better chance running against Van Epps, but I think Democratic primary voters chose the weakest of the field. I might have been tempted to vote for a more moderate Dem, or at least would have considered it. 

This is what Aftyn Behn thinks and wrote in 2019, and I think it shows how out of touch she is with the people she wants to represent: “Tennessee is a racist state. Racism is in the air we breathe, permeating the Tennessee State Capitol, codified in the legislation being passed at the detriment of women, communities of color, and the working poor.”

 I don't think this attitude is going to attract people who are not already predisposed to vote for her. Winning is about attracting people, not pushing them away. It is about addition, not subtraction. I am sure she thinks someone with my views is a racist. Despite my desire to see a House of Representatives that would be a check on Donald Trump, she does not make me want to vote for her. 

As Republicans continue to embrace Trump populism and move further to the right, instead of Democrats trying to recapture the center, which should be up for grabs, they move further to the left. Of course, that is where the energy is; there are few raging moderates. 

Top Stories

The Strangest War

by Nick Catoggio, The Dispatch, October 30, 2025 - The most dystopian developments of the second Trump presidency weren’t merely predictable, they were predicted. Exasperated doomsayers like me have spent the last nine months and will spend the next 39 repeatedly asking variations of the same question: What did you think would happen?

Well, I sure didn’t think a war with Venezuela would happen.

Our looming adventure in South America is shaping up to be the strangest U.S. military conflict of my lifetime. Every other major war we’ve fought had some plausible-ish casus belli—containing communism in the Far East, destroying the terrorist outfit that perpetrated 9/11, preventing Saddam Hussein from gobbling up parts of the Middle East, and later, from building nuclear weapons. Bombing campaigns in Serbia and Libya were also supported by credible humanitarian rationales.

An attack on Venezuela would be the first time in my memory that the U.S. government hasn’t at least tried to make a compelling case for war before moving forward.

The ostensible reason for targeting Nicolás Maduro’s regime is to halt drug trafficking into the United States, but numerous media outlets, including The Dispatch, have already debunked that. Venezuela just isn’t much of a player in the international drug trade and has nothing to do with the plague of fentanyl overdoses that’s killed so many Americans over the past decade. (read more)

Top Stories

A Really Scary Happy Halloween Comic Book, #2

 

Top Stories

A Really Scary Halloween Comic Book

 

Top Stories

Why Normal People Can't Relate to Democrats: Was It Something I Said?

To: All Who Wish to Stop Donald Trump and MAGA

From: Third Way

For a party that spends billions of dollars trying to find the perfect language to connect to voters, Democrats and their allies use an awful lot of words and phrases no ordinary person would ever dream of saying. The intent of this language is to include, broaden, empathize, accept, and embrace. The effect of this language is to sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness. To please the few, we have alienated the many—especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant.

In reality, most Democrats do not run or govern on wildly out-of-touch social positions. But voters would be excused to believe we do because of the words that come out of our mouths—words which sound like we are hiding behind unfamiliar phrases to mask extreme intent.

Why the tortured language? After all, many Democrats are aware that the words and phrases we use can be profoundly alienating. But they use it because plain, authentic language that voters understand often rebounds badly among many activists and advocacy organizations. These activists and advocates may take on noble causes, but in doing so they often demand compliance with their preferred messages; that is how “birthing person” became a stand-in for mother or mom. And if we don’t think more carefully about our language, many in America will be banking on help from Donald Trump and Republicans, because Democratic levers of power will be few and far between. 

In this memo, we are putting a spotlight on the language we use that puts a wall between us and everyday people of all races, religions, and ethnicities. These are words that people simply do not say, yet they hear them from Democrats. Over the years we’ve conducted, read, and analyzed hours upon hours of focus groups, and we’ve yet to hear a voter volunteer any of the phrases below except as a form of derision or parody of Democrats. We’re not talking about techno-speak, like net-zero and climate resiliency. Those words put up their own Ivy League walls between policymakers and voters. Here we are focusing on the eggshell dance of political correctness which leaves the people we aim to reach cold or fearful of admonishment.

Finally, we are not out to police language, ban phrases or create our own form of censorship. Truth be told, we have published papers that have used some of these words as well. But when policymakers are public-facing, the language we use must invite, not repel; start a conversation, not end it; provide clarity, not confusion.

Therapy-Speak

These words say “I’m more empathetic than you, and you are callous to hurting other’s feelings.”

• Privilege
• Violence (as in “environmental violence”)
• Dialoguing
• Othering
• Triggering
• Microaggression/assault/invalidation
• Progressive stack
• Centering
• Safe space
• Holding space
• Body shaming

Be aware of words proliferating in elite circles that have closed off open conversations and have made it uncomfortable for many people to engage in hard topics.

Seminar Room Language

This language says “I’m smarter and more concerned about important issues than you. Your kitchen table concerns are small.”

• Subverting norms
• Systems of oppression
• Critical theory
• Cultural appropriation
• Postmodernism
• Overton Window
• Heuristic
• Existential threat to [climate, the planet, democracy, the economy]

When we use words people don’t understand, studies show that the part of their brain that signals distrust becomes more active, undermining our ability to reach them.

Organizer Jargon

These words say “we are beholden to groups, not individuals. People have no agency.”

• Radical transparency
• Small ‘d’ democracy
• Barriers to participation
• Stakeholders
• The unhoused
• Food insecurity
• Housing insecurity
• Person who immigrated

Democrats can fight for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, and immigrants more effectively if they speak in everyday language and in the language of those most affected by these issues.

Gender/Orientation Correctness

These say “your views on traditional genders and gender roles are at best quaint.”

• Birthing person/inseminated person
• Pregnant people
• Chest feeding
• Cisgender
• Deadnaming
• Heteronormative
• Patriarchy
• LGBTQIA+

Standing up to MAGA’s cruel attacks on gay and transgender people requires creating empathy and building a broad coalition, not confusing or shaming people who could otherwise be allies.

The Shifting Language of Racial Constructs

These words signal that talking about race is even more of a minefield. You will be called out as racist if you do not use the latest and correct terminology.

• Latinx
• BIPOC
• Allyship
• Intersectionality
• Minoritized communities

As we fight racism and discrimination, we should reflect upon whether the words we are using are part of the reason Democrats are losing support from all non-White voter groups. We must know when to take a step back and listen, instead of peppering our websites, fundraising asks, and newsletters with sociology buzzwords.

Explaining Away Crime

This says: “The criminal is the victim. The victim is an afterthought.”

• Justice-involved
• Carceration
• Incarcerated people
• Involuntary confinement

People deserve to feel safe where they live, work, and go to school, and we can’t defend the progress we’ve made on criminal justice reform or hope to make more unless we acknowledge that reality in plain terms.

Conclusion

Some will take issue with the inclusion of words or phrases we ask Democrats to avoid when talking to the public. And to reiterate, we have used some of these phrases in our own writings in the past.

Before you draft your angry tweet thread, think about conversations with persuadable voters in your own life—especially friends, family, and co-workers—and consider whether the use of the language above would help or hurt your case. Recognize that much of the language above is a red flag for a sizable segment of the American public. It is not because they are bigots, but because they fear cancellation, doxing, or trouble with HR if they make a mistake. Or they simply don’t understand what these terms mean and become distrustful of those who use them. So instead, they keep quiet. They don’t join the conversation, they leave it.

We will never abandon our values or stop doing things to protect those who need help, encouragement, trust, a second chance, acceptance, a fair shake, and the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. But as the catastrophe of Trump 2.0 has shown, the most important thing we can do for these people and causes is to build a bigger army to fight them. Communicating in authentic ways that welcome rather than drive voters away would be a good start.

Rod's Comment: I wish to defeat Donald Trump, but I just can't relate to people who say "birthing person," instead of "mothers." To help defeat Donald Trump, I will vote for a sane center-left Democrat but I have a hard time pulling the lever for people who speak Woke-English. I have a hard time responding to fundraising appeals when the author of the appeal feels compelled to tell me he is a "he/him."

There are rational voices within the Democratic Party pointing out why the Democrats continue to be so unpopular. I hear it from people like James Carville, Fareed Zakaria, Ezra Klein, and David Frum. I am not sure many Democrats are getting the message. I have progressive Democrat members of my own family who tell me the reason Kamala Harris lost the last election is simply because America is a misogynistic and racist country. Democrats really make it hard for people to join them. They make it hard for people to like them. They make it hard for people to consider their ideas because they can't get past the way Dems talk. The Democratic Party trails the Republican Party in fundraising, in new party registrations, and in favorability. I wish the woke party would wake up. 

Third Way is a center-left think tank that champions moderate policy and political ideas. For more information, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Federal court tosses health care gender-identity mandates

By Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, Oct 24, 2025 - A Mississippi judge said the Biden administration "exceeded its authority" in redefining sex discrimination and prohibiting gender discrimination. 

A 15-state coalition led by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch challenged the rule.

The policy adopted by the Biden administration would have "forced doctors to perform controversial gender-transition procedures and Tennessee taxpayers to fund them," according to Skrmetti's office. The Department of Health and Human Services used Title IX, a policy enacted by Congress to prevent sex discrimination in education, as its reasoning behind the decision. 

"Neither Defendants nor this Court have authority to reinterpret or expand the meaning of 'sex' under Title IX," wrote U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. in the decision. 

If implemented, the rule would have also barred health care facilities from separate spaces for each sex, according to Skrmetti's office. 

“When Biden-era bureaucrats tried to illegally rewrite our laws to force radical gender ideology into every corner of American health care, Tennessee stood strong and stopped them,” Skrmetti said.  “Our 15-state coalition worked together to protect the right of health care providers across America to make decisions based on evidence, reason, and conscience. This decision restores not just common sense but also constitutional limits on federal overreach, and I am proud of the team of excellent attorneys who fought this through to the finish.”

Top Stories

No One is Stealing Money from Social Security

by Rod Williams,  Oct. 27, 2025- There are things that people believe that are simply not true. These are not things about which different people can have different points of view; these are things that are simply false. One of these persistently untrue things is that the government stole money from Social Security. First of all, Social Security is the government, but I know what they mean. What they mean is that money that should be in the Social Security Trust Fund was taken and spent elsewhere. That is not true. Yet, this seems to be a common knowledge. I see it on Facebook memes and hear it said on talk radio and have heard it said at political-type luncheon meetings and in personal conversations. There is a Facebook friend, a super Trumpinista, who follows my Facebook post and today he posted his "6-point Save America Plan." Point 4 was, "20-year plan to replace money stolen from Social Security."  

I don't know who started this lie that the government stole money from Social Security, but it is pure fiction. Funds collected by Social Security are invested by law in special U.S. Treasury bonds. If you have a savings account at your local bank, it does not just sit in a vault waiting for you to withdraw it. It is invested. We do not say the bank stole our money. If you, as an individual own a U. S. Treasury bond, you invested your money; the government did not steal your money. It is the same with Social Security; the funds you pay into Social Security are not in a vault waiting to be paid out but are invested and earning interest. 

While the bonds held in the Social Security Trust Fund are a form of debt for the U.S. government, they are considered an asset for Social Security. When Social Security needs to pay benefits, it redeems these bonds for cash from the Treasury. The bonds represent an IOU from the government. The bonds are as about as safe as you can get. 

The real challenge facing Social Security is a long-term funding shortfall, not stolen funds. People are living longer and we have not increased the age of retirement. Also, people are having fewer children, so we have fewer people paying into the system. We have known this was coming for decades and it would have been a painless fix if we had made small incremental changes over time, but we have kicked the can down the road so long that it gets harder and harder to fix and more painful. Still, there are things we can do to fix it. 

Unfortunately, under President Trump, we are enacting policies that are making the problem worse instead of better. The administration's "One Big Beautiful Bill," eliminated income taxes on Social Security benefits for most retirees, which supporters call a tax cut but which would eliminate a revenue stream of about $950 billion and advance the date of insolvency by several years. Also, ending taxes on tips and overtime pay will further decrease tax revenue for the Social Security trust funds. Trump's tariffs and immigration restrictions are projected to reduce overall U.S. economic output and limit the number of workers paying into the system. So, Trump's policies are leading to the depletion of the Social Security Trust Fund at a more rapid pace. 

To bring Social Security outlays more in line with Social Security revenues, we could raise the retirement age, we could cut benefits, we could increase the FICA tax rate, or we could raise the cap on the amount of personal income subject to Social Security taxes. All of these would be met with opposition, but we will probably end up doing a combination of some or all of these. 

Personally, I would like to increase the attractiveness of IRA's and transition away from Social Security. I would like for the rest of the country to have a retirement plan similar to what Federal government employees have.  You don't own your Social Security funds to which you feel entitled. If you die, you can't leave the money you paid into Social Security to your children. With an IRA or a plan like government workers have, you can.

I would also like to make social security means-tested. Warren Buffett does not need to draw Social Security. Social Security is not a retirement plan and you don't own your Social Security. Social Security is a transfer payment. People who are working pay money into Social Security and that money goes to current recipients of Social Security. It is more like welfare than a retirement plan. 

I doubt the reform I want will be considered and we will likely continue with Social Security as we know it, with a combination of the fixes listed above.  While the Social Security Trust fund is projected to be depleted in 2034, this does not mean Social Security will become bankrupt or "insolvent". It means the program will only be able to pay about 81% of scheduled benefits from incoming tax revenue. 

We have a serious problem facing Social Security and the longer we delay fixing it the harder it is to fix. However, this fantasy that all would be okay with Social Security if the government had not stolen money from the trust fund is pure fantasy.

I know that some people are determined to believe untrue things and don't want to be confused with facts. If you are willing to be confused by facts, here is some suggested reading: 

Fact or Fiction: Congress Stole From Social Security and Should Return the Money It's Taken, With Interest | Nasdaq
AMAC: When Will Funds Stolen from Social Security be Replaced?
No, no one is stealing from Social Security (opinion) | CNN
Does the Government Steal from Social Security? – Center for Retirement Research
The Social Security Trust Fund Myth | Cato Institute

There is no shortage of articles from reliable sources debunking the myth of the stolen Social Security Funds. I could supply a hundred more. For some people, like the Facebook friend who posted the "6-point plan to save America," and many more, they delight in their ignorance and somehow take pride in it. They are not to be confused with facts. 

Top Stories

Beacon’s $1.4 Million Stormwater Settlement Receives Preliminary Court Approval. For Refund, Apply Before Nov.13.

 BY BEN STORMES, The Beacon Center, Oct. 25, 2025 -Beacon is excited to share a major development in our legal challenge against Nashville’s stormwater capacity fees. On July 18, 2025, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee preliminarily approved a $1.4 million class action settlement, a crucial step forward in securing justice for 361 homeowners who were unfairly charged fees before receiving building permits.

This case began with homeowners like Peyton Pratt, who was forced to pay thousands of dollars simply for seeking to expand his home for his growing family. Beacon is proud to represent Mr. Pratt free of charge, and thanks to his courage and the support of others, hundreds of property owners are now closer to receiving the refunds they deserve.

As part of the settlement, the city will issue full refunds to affected property owners. Within 28 days of the court’s order, each eligible homeowner will receive a notice and claim form by mail, along with a prepaid envelope to return it. To claim a refund, completed forms must be submitted by November 13, 2025, either by email or by mail to the address provided in the notice and posted below.

Metro Water Services
ATTN: Shawna Rodriguez: Pratt v. Metro Settlement
P.O. Box 196300
Nashville, TN 37219
E-mail: mws.swavailability@nashville.gov

The city has also posted on its website, providing instructions, contact information, and an electronic submission option for the claim form.

Because this is a class action settlement, a final fairness hearing is scheduled for October 30, 2025. If the Court stamps its final approval on the settlement, property owners who submitted their claim forms via mail or electronic submissions will be entitled to a full refund. Beacon will provide further updates here after the final hearing.

For the order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, click here.

If you are a property owner who paid the stormwater capacity fee and have any questions, please contact: Wen Fa at wen@beacontn.org, or Ben Stormes at ben.stormes@beacontn.org.

Top Stories

Canada Uses the Voice and Words of Ronald Reagan to Argue Against Tariffs. Trump Halts Talks.

by Rod Williams, Oct. 24, 2025- Late yesterday, Donald Trump halted trade talks with Canada over the above ad. This is how the Wall Street Journal reported it:

President Trump said late Thursday he was terminating trade negotiations with Canada, pointing to a television advertisement sponsored by the Ontario government that features Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about tariffs.

“Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post shortly before 11 p.m.

The president claimed that Canada “fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs.” Trump argued the ad was designed to interfere with the Supreme Court and other courts as they weigh the legality of his far-reaching tariffs. (To read the rest of the story, follow this link)

This is just nuts! The Supreme Court is not influenced by a Canadian television advertisement. Ideally, the Supreme Court should not be influenced by the news or public opinion, and I think for the most part they are not. Trump is just a petulant child who cannot tolerate criticism. He can dish it out, but sure can't take it. 

Before Donald Trump, free trade was a bedrock principle of conservatism. For the most part, the post-depression position of the United States was for free trade and a reduction of tariffs. When anyone did argue for protectionism, it was usually a Democrat, but for the most part, there was a consensus that free trade was advantageous to the United States and the world. There was always, however, a kind of populist support for protectionism, but wiser, more informed viewpoints prevailed. Now, of course, the Republican Party has become the party of protectionism. The wise voices have been sidelined and the populists are in charge. While many a Trumpinista still say they revere Ronald Reagan, they subscribe to almost none of the positions he advocated. They get annoyed when it is pointed out that Trmpinistas are not the heirs of Reaganites. 

Top Stories

The Practical Case for Protecting Free Speech

Justine Owen

by Justine Owen, The Beacon Center, originally published Oct. 2, 2025-  In the wake of the awful assassination of Charlie Kirk, we are learning a great deal about the First Amendment’s protection of free expression. Our VP of Legal Affairs, Wen Fa, has a great post about the importance of protecting our First Amendment rights as part of our First Principles Series. To follow up on that piece, I wanted to provide a practical take on why protecting free speech is one of the most important things we can do. 

First of all, it’s important to clarify what is and is not protected by the First Amendment. The amendment, like all constitutional protections, shields us against government infringement on our rights. Our Founders knew—and witnessed firsthand under British rule—that government restrictions on our ability to speak freely and express our ideas were a dangerous proposition. They therefore enshrined in the First Amendment limitations on government’s ability to restrict our speech. Especially in this era of partisan divide, speech that’s applauded by some is often deplored by others. Once we allow government to dictate what is and is not protected speech versus what can be censored, we allow those in positions of power to be the subjective arbiters of what we say. And that is a slippery slope into tyranny, something our Founders knew all too well could destroy our American ideals. 

On the other hand, the First Amendment does not protect us against all the ramifications of our speech. While the government is limited in what it can do to punish us for our speech, those protections don’t extend into the private sphere. Thus, when people openly celebrate violence by saying things like Charlie Kirk “got what was coming to him,” their speech is not protected insofar as their employment and other associations. They can freely speak their minds, however abhorrent, without risking government punishment. But they can be reprimanded and even fired by their employers for doing so. Just as you have the freedom to associate with those who share your values, individuals who run businesses have the right to disassociate with those who contradict the values for which they stand. And being fired by a private actor for speaking is not a First Amendment violation. 

While many on the political left have learned this lesson the hard way in recent weeks, I appeal to those on the political right to learn the limits the First Amendment places on government just the same. When Attorney General Pam Bondi pledged to prosecute “hate speech” in response to Kirk’s murder, she crossed the line into government censorship of speech that is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment. Allowing the president, the attorney general, or any government official to decide what is and is not objectionable speech is expressly what our Constitution is designed to prevent. What is acceptable speech to our leaders currently in charge will undoubtedly be defined as objectionable and punishable by leaders with opposing political views when they take power. You may be OK with what today’s leaders want to punish as “hate speech”; I can assure you that one day you won’t be. Perhaps even your own speech might one day be deemed hateful and therefore punishable by government if you allow someone else’s to be today. 

Fortunately for all our sakes, we have a First Amendment that has withstood the test of time by protecting all speech, not just that which those in power accept as permissible. And it’s up to each of us to defend that principle, even when we don’t like what we hear. 

Justin Owen is the President & Chief Executive Officer of the Beacon Center of Tennessee and Beacon Impact.

Top Stories

Tennessee is Worst in Nation for Opioid Abuse. Why?

by Rod Williams, Oct. 23, 2025 -According to 2024 data from FAIR Health, Tennessee had the highest rate of opioid use disorder diagnoses among commercially insured patients in the United States. 

FAIR Health's Opioid Tracker revealed 1,447 commercially insured patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder per 100,000, in 2024.

The ongoing opioid epidemic has been a major health concern in Tennessee for years, and the new data shows that the problem continues and is worsening. 

The information from Fair Health is only for commercially insured patients. If it included the uninsured or those on TennCare, the rate would be much higher. 

Tennessee is among the states most severely impacted by the opioid crisis, marked by high rates of overdose deaths, substance use disorders, and associated social consequences. The epidemic has progressed through phases, from an oversupply of prescription opioids to an increase in heroin use and, currently, a dramatic rise in synthetic opioids, particularly illicit fentanyl. 

In 2023, 3,985 Tennesseans died from drug overdoses, with 75% of these involving an opioid. Overdoses now claim more lives in Tennessee than motor vehicle accidents and homicides combined.

Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are the primary drivers of recent overdose deaths. In 2022, over two-thirds of all drug overdose deaths in Tennessee involved fentanyl.

Overprescribing is a major driver of the drug epidemic in Tennessee. Despite state efforts to limit access, more opioid prescriptions are written annually than there are people living in Tennessee.

The epidemic has hit different areas of the state disproportionately. For example, East Tennessee has historically had the highest opioid consumption rates, and Northeast counties reported high rates of overdose deaths in 2022. 

The epidemic strains healthcare systems, is a factor in children being placed in state custody, and has led to a significant rise in drug-related incarcerations. In 2021, over 700 babies were born with opioid withdrawal symptoms. 

This is discouraging. It is not as if the State is not attempting to do something about it.  Tennessee's Opioid Abatement Council was established in law by the Tennessee General Assembly to decide how to best spend dollars received from lawsuits related to the opioid crisis. A lot of money is available to combat the epidemic, and it is being spent, yet the opioid abuse continues to grow.

Why is Tennessee the worst state for drug abuse? Income may be a factor. We are the 42nd in income. While the correlation between income and drug abuse is not direct, most of the states with high rates of drug abuse are lower-income states. 

While Tennessee is the most drug-addled state in the Union, America as a whole is the most drug-addled developed country in the world, yet America is the richest country in the world. Why does America have such a problem and why does Tennessee?  I am not sure we know.

The biggest current drug problem in America is fentanyl, and the US is focused on stemming the supply. We act as if somehow someone had a gun to our head and was making us take these drugs. I want the supply steemed, however, there would be no supply if there was no demand. The problem is not China or Mexico; it is us. It is disheartening.

Top Stories