Rxan Smith Uncomfortable

Trump’s Department of Justice is suing election officials in 21 states and Washington D.C. for access to voter rolls, and it has lost more than 10 of those fights already, in states from Michigan to New Hampshire to Georgia. He called California’s June primary “rigged,” and when a reporter asked him for evidence, his answer was “all I have to do is look.” The Senate can’t even pass his own party’s citizenship-verification bill. This fight didn’t end in 2020. It’s the opening act of the 2026 midterms.

Which makes this the right moment to actually do the homework nobody in the shouting match wants to do.

The Republican Case, Made As Strong As It Deserves

Strip away the theatrics and the strongest version of the Republican argument isn’t “millions of illegal votes.” It’s a vulnerabilities argument, and it has real cases behind it.

The Heritage Foundation keeps the only database of its kind: over 1,500 proven instances of election fraud, each one a case where a prosecutor took it seriously enough to charge it, and it ended in a conviction, a fine, or an overturned result. These aren’t hypotheticals.

In 2019, a political operative named Leslie McCrae Dowless ran a ballot-trafficking scheme in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, collecting and altering absentee ballots on behalf of a Republican congressional candidate. It worked well enough that state election officials threw out the result and ordered a new election, the first time a U.S. congressional race had been overturned for fraud in 40 years.

In Hawthorne, California, a mayoral candidate was hit with a 41-count indictment for allegedly submitting more than 8,000 fraudulent voter registrations using the identities of homeless residents, an operation that prosecutors alleged was connected to members of the MS-13 gang seeking to install a friendly mayor.

A Milwaukee election official was charged after requesting military absentee ballots under false names during the 2022 midterms. A Fulton County, Georgia canvasser was hit with 70 felony counts for fabricating names on voter registration forms in 2024.

This is the honest version of “they have proof.” Not a stolen presidency. A real, documented, prosecutable category of crime that happens in this country, committed by Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike, and it is Heritage’s own database that says so.

The Full Record, With The Scale Attached

Here’s where the Republican case usually stops citing its own source’s caveats, so we won’t.

Heritage says plainly that its database is a sampling, not a comprehensive count, and that it cannot capture fraud that goes undetected in states with weak safeguards. Fair. But the Brennan Center at NYU ran the other direction and audited the same list, and their finding matters just as much: the cases span decades, many are unrelated or barely related to each other, and only a small fraction involve the two things people actually picture when they hear “voter fraud” (noncitizens voting or someone impersonating a voter at the polls). Measured against the hundreds of millions of votes cast across the years the database covers, the Brennan Center concluded that proven fraud exists but is extraordinarily rare, too infrequent by orders of magnitude to alter a statewide outcome.

Not zero. Not “the system is rigged.” A trickle, not a flood.

Both of those things are true at once, and that’s the actual finding. Over 1,500 real convictions, spread across more than a decade of American elections. A trickle that election officials from both parties routinely investigate and prosecute, itself evidence the system is working closer to as designed than either side wants to admit on television.

What Trump’s Own People Found When They Went Looking

This is the part of the story Republican leadership would prefer you forget, because it isn’t the media making this finding. It’s investigators Trump personally appointed, twice, three years apart, using two different methods, in his own administration.

The Commission. In 2017, after claiming three to five million people voted illegally against him in 2016, Trump created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. He put his own Vice President, Mike Pence, in the chair, and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the country’s most aggressive voter-fraud crusaders, running the operation day to day. It was not a commission stacked with skeptics. It leaned seven Republicans to four Democrats.

It met exactly twice. It never issued a report. And when a Democratic commissioner sued to get the internal documents, what came back showed the draft report’s section on evidence of fraud was, in his words, glaringly empty. Facing lawsuits and mass refusal from state election officials, most of them Republicans, to hand over sensitive voter data, Trump disbanded the whole commission by executive order in January 2018.

That’s not a commission that got shut down by Democrats. That’s a commission Republicans built, Republicans ran, and Republicans quietly walked away from once it became clear it had nothing to show.

The 2020 DOJ. Fast forward three years, and it’s Trump’s own Attorney General, William Barr, one of his most loyal appointees, running the equivalent check on the actual election that ended his presidency. In December 2020, after weeks of Trump legal team members Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell alleging a nationwide conspiracy involving rigged voting machines and foreign servers, Barr told reporters flatly that his department had not seen fraud on a scale that could have changed the outcome. He addressed the machine-rigging claim by name and said DHS and DOJ had looked into it and found nothing to substantiate it.

Add the rest of the record and the pattern holds. More than 60 post-election lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies were dismissed, several by judges Trump himself had appointed, for lack of evidence. Arizona’s Republican state senate commissioned its own hand recount specifically to hunt for the fraud they were sure existed, run by a firm sympathetic to their cause, and it came back having confirmed Biden’s win, with his margin slightly wider than the official count. When Trump personally asked Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State to “find” him 11,780 votes, Raffensperger refused, and a statewide audit and recount reaffirmed the result anyway.

The Record:

60+ post-election lawsuits dismissed or withdrawn
Two Trump-directed federal investigations found no outcome-changing fraud
More than ten DOJ voter-roll lawsuits lost during 2026

Two investigations. Two Trump-appointed leaderships. Three years apart. Same conclusion both times: nothing that changes an outcome.

Mechanism Over Mascots

Here’s the uncomfortable part, and it cuts in a direction neither party’s donor class wants printed.

The incentive to allege fraud isn’t a Republican defect or a Democratic virtue. It’s a structural pull that activates in any party expecting to lose, or that just did. Watch the 2026 pattern and you’re watching the same mechanism run again in real time: DOJ suing 30 states for voter data and losing in court more than 10 times, an administration official installed at Homeland Security specifically because of her history questioning voter rolls, and federal prosecutors reportedly still struggling to produce the evidence the rhetoric promises, all while the President tells a national television audience that his proof of a rigged California primary is that he looked at it.

The clearest example landed this week. On July 9, Trump fired all three remaining commissioners of the Election Assistance Commission, the small bipartisan agency that certifies voting machines and helps state officials run elections. By law it can never have more than two commissioners from either party. It now has zero, and replacements need Senate confirmation that likely won’t happen before November. Whatever the merits of the individual firings, the effect is the same one that runs through every item in this piece: the referee leaves the field right as the game gets close.

None of that makes the underlying vulnerabilities fake. Ballot trafficking happens. Registration fraud happens. Weak signature-verification systems are a real design flaw worth fixing, and fixing them doesn’t require anybody to admit an election was stolen. But when the same institutions, built by the same party, twice, under two different leaders, go looking for the thing their own base is certain is happening and come back empty both times, that result means something.

Fraud exists. Elections aren’t perfect. Neither fact proves a stolen presidency.

When the people with the greatest incentive to prove extraordinary fraud spend years investigating and repeatedly fail to produce extraordinary evidence, skepticism should shift toward the claim itself.

Fraud is real. It’s rare. It’s caught. And the loudest people insisting otherwise are, more often than not, the ones who had the power to prove it and didn’t.

R❌AN SMITH

“Less outrage. More evidence. More uncomfortable conversations.”

The Award They Couldn't Cancel

Rxan Smith — Sat, 11 Jul 2026 14:42:50 GMT

Rxan Smith | Uncomfortable • July 10, 2026

There’s a tarp on the Kennedy Center right now up, covering the spot where Trump’s name used to be, court-ordered off after a legal fight over the building’s rename. On June 28, in the concert hall behind that tarp, in the venue Trump tried to claim as his monument, Bill Maher received the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor.

The White House had spent the spring insisting it wasn’t going to happen. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it fake news months before it did. The Kennedy Center confirmed the pick anyway. Two months later, Maher was standing on that stage collecting comedy’s closest thing to a lifetime achievement award, at a building that couldn’t decide whose name belonged on it, for a guy neither political tribe can fully claim either.

Since its inception in 1998, the Mark Twain Prize has honored Richard Pryor, Jonathan Winters, Carl Reiner, Whoopi Goldberg, Bob Newhart, Lily Tomlin, Lorne Michaels, Steve Martin, Neil Simon, Billy Crystal, George Carlin, Tina Fey, Will Ferrell, Carol Burnett, Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, David Letterman, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Dave Chappelle, Jon Stewart, Adam Sandler, Kevin Hart, Conan O’Brien, and now Bill Maher. (Bill Cosby’s award was later rescinded.)

That’s the whole story in one image. Here’s the mechanism behind it.

PayPal

Here’s what most people misunderstand about Bill Maher.

His real achievement wasn’t comedy. It was building a platform where he could afford to tell uncomfortable truths without asking permission from either tribe, or from advertisers who panic every Tuesday morning.

That platform is the model. Everything else is just the delivery system.

The Leverage Play

Maher got canceled in 2002 after 9/11 comments cost Politically Incorrect its sponsors. He didn’t apologize his way back onto network television. He rebuilt on HBO, the one place where advertisers couldn’t reach him every week.

Real Time has now run for more than two decades. That’s not a television show. That’s a moat.

Bill Maher turned comedy into leverage, then turned that leverage into one of the hardest platforms in media to cancel.

Then he used it on everyone: Obama, Biden, Vance, Pence, and anyone else who wandered into the room.

“You want to not get mocked? Stop being funny.”Bill Maher, accepting the Mark Twain Prize

He Used It On Everybody

Republicans think he’s MSNBC in loafers. Progressives think he’s Fox News with better vocabulary. Both keep watching anyway.

On his own side he has been merciless: liberals are “weak and woke,” Democrats risk losing patriotism if they don’t correct course, and the party refuses to walk into any room that isn’t already friendly. He has called out the campus left, the purity spirals, and the refusal to debate ideas that poll terribly but dominate elite discourse.

A lot more progressives privately agree with him than would ever admit it online. The ones who say it out loud get treated like the enemy. That’s not a movement. That’s a terrarium.

He hasn’t gone soft on the right either. He mocked the Iran “art of the deal,” called Trump racist and anti-democratic, and once printed out 60 insults Trump had thrown at him and got the man himself to sign the list. Whatever that relationship is, it isn’t an alliance.

I agree. The problem is you’re trying to present paired arguments, not a list. The formatting should reinforce that. Substack’s quote blocks and horizontal rules actually interrupt the rhythm.

I’d do something like this instead:

New Rules: The Uncomfortable Bargain & The “Stop” List

In one of his sharper monologue of the past year, Maher went back and forth laying out the exact stupidities both tribes refuse to drop, playing the voice of reason character to critical acclaim.

Maher wasn’t performing balance, rather naming habits that keep us stuck.

REPUBLICANS: Stop treating fetal personhood from the moment of conception as settled scientific fact.

DEMOCRATS: Stop treating “trans women are biologically identical to women” as settled scientific fact.

Neither of you gets to declare contested moral and biological questions off-limits to debate.

REPUBLICANS: Retire “alternative facts.”

DEMOCRATS: Retire “my truth.”

Subjective feeling doesn’t override material reality just because you gave it a friendlier slogan.

REPUBLICANS: Stop pretending “thoughts and prayers” is a substitute for policy.

DEMOCRATS: Stop pretending land acknowledgments accomplish anything beyond making the speaker feel virtuous.

Symbolism without action is still inaction.

REPUBLICANS: Admit voter fraud on a scale capable of changing national election outcomes is not a documented reality.

DEMOCRATS: Admit requiring a photo ID is not inherently voter suppression. Most democracies require one.

Democracy requires both access and integrity. Pretending only one matters is how trust erodes.

It’s remarkable how two political tribes that agree Congress is dysfunctional somehow conclude the solution is giving their own side even more excuses..

The Ninety Percent Problem

Here’s the part that explains why he draws fire from every direction at once. In a piece called “The Church of Perpetual Disappointment,” I made the case that the modern left has a specific, self-inflicted wound: we ban the ninety percent because we can’t stand the ten. Someone says a hundred things, ninety of them land, and the ten that don’t become the entire verdict. I used Maher as the example, because he’s the one my own side loves to make an example of.

That math doesn’t change when I turn it toward Republicans, or toward myself. If you read this whole piece, agree with ninety percent of it, and go looking for the one line to be furious about so you can dismiss the rest, that’s the same disease wearing a different jersey. I don’t have Maher’s timing, and I’m not going to pretend a guy with a Substack is as funny as a guy with forty-two Emmy nominations. But the refusal to let the ten percent cancel the ninety, that’s the exact same fight he’s been having since before I was old enough to vote. I’m just as motivated. I just don’t have the laugh track.

Bill Maher Didn’t Change. The Party Did.

One of the laziest narratives in modern politics is that Maher “became conservative.”

He didn’t.

He’s been saying politically inconvenient things since Politically Incorrect debuted in the 1990s.

What changed wasn’t him.

It was the tolerance for disagreement inside the left’s tribe, especially within institutions that increasingly reward ideological conformity over intellectual consistency.

Standing still eventually made him look like he’d switched sides because the political ground beneath him kept moving.

In an era where disagreement is treated as betrayal, consistency gets mistaken for defection.

The Model, Not the Man

None of this means Maher gets everything right. Reasonable people disagree with plenty of his calls. That’s not the argument.

The argument is the mechanism: he took a career that got him fired once, rebuilt it into a platform neither party fully trusts, and spent two decades using it to make both sides uncomfortable in the same week, sometimes the same sentence. He did it long enough that even the administration that tried to deny him an award couldn’t stop the Kennedy Center from giving it to him anyway.

The Politically Homeless Model

This is why I built this publication the way I did.

Maher built his platform with stand-up. Mine is built with long-form analysis, rigorous sourcing, and evidence. Different tools. Same principle.

The moat isn’t comedy. The moat is the willingness to criticize your own side without flinching, to follow the evidence even when it irritates the people who otherwise agree with you, and to say the quiet part out loud before the algorithm rewards you for staying quiet.

Bill Maher’s legacy isn’t that he was always right. It’s that he built a career where being wrong occasionally was less dangerous than refusing to speak honestly. That’s a trade too few journalists, politicians, comedians, or academics are willing to make.

I’m trying to make it anyway.

Different medium.

Same bargain.

Less comfort.

More evidence.

🎤💧

- R❌AN SMITH

Further Uncomfortable Reading

An operating manual for the exhausted majority, tired of both burning clown cars.

“Less outrage. More evidence. More uncomfortable conversations.”

Graham Platner: Innocent Until Proven Inconvenient - The Mechanism, Not The Macot

Rxan Smith — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 13:56:48 GMT

Let's be clear about what this piece is not. It’s not a claim that Platner is innocent. It’s not sympathy for him. Rape isn’t a sexual act, it’s a violent one, and nothing here is interested in softening that. This piece is about what the party did in the sixty-eight hours after the allegation became public. It is not about what Platner did in 2021.

Sixty-eight hours.

That’s roughly how long it took Graham Platner to go from Senate nominee to former Senate nominee. Politico published Jenny Racicot’s account of a 2021 assault on a Monday. By Wednesday night, Elizabeth Warren had drawn a line, Ro Khanna had called it “credible” and a “red line,” Ruben Gallego called it “troubling and deeply serious,” Bernie Sanders had told him to step aside, and the DSCC had made it clear the national party would not spend a dollar defending a nominee it no longer wanted defended. Platner suspended his campaign that night, denying the allegation on his way out the door.

No hearing. No investigation. No finding of fact. Just a clock, a fundraising spigot somebody could turn off, and a deadline six days out.

Political parties aren’t courts.
They don’t determine guilt.
They determine cost.
Subscribe for full access, or leave a one-time tip via Buy Me a Coffee or PayPal. Every subscription, tip, share, and recommendation keeps evidence-based, independent journalism free from corporate or partisan influence.

WHAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW

We know Racicot alleges Platner entered her home intoxicated in 2021 and assaulted her without her consent. We know Platner has called that “categorically untrue.” We know this followed months of Democrats absorbing other, lesser controversies about him (a tattoo that read as Nazi iconography before he covered it, deleted Reddit posts, a report he sent explicit messages to other women while married) and deciding, apparently, that none of it was disqualifying.

We do not know whether the assault happened. Nobody knows. That’s the entire point. An allegation is a claim, not a verdict, and treating it as either nothing or everything is how you end up with a country that can’t tell the difference between a courtroom and a group chat.

Racicot deserves an actual investigation, not a campaign committee doing triage with a stopwatch. So does every accuser and every accused. What Platner got instead wasn’t due process being applied and finding him guilty. It was due process never being invited to the meeting at all.

THE TELL

Here’s the uncomfortable part nobody in this fight wants to sit with: due process was never a principle either party actually holds. It’s a credit line, and it only gets extended to borrowers with enough collateral to make the interest payment worth it.

Graham Platner had four months, a nomination the party establishment never wanted him to win in the first place (they recruited Janet Mills to beat him and she couldn’t), and zero incumbency. He was, in the coldest possible accounting, cheap to lose.

There’s a cleaner way to see this than “hypocrisy.” Watch what the party does when the accused is expensive.

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

EXHIBIT A: THE PROOF OF CONCEPT

Bill Clinton faced multiple serious allegations while serving as president, including a rape allegation from Juanita Broaddrick and sexual harassment claims from Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. He was impeached over process crimes tied to the Lewinsky affair, not over any of those allegations, and the Senate acquitted him without a single Democratic vote to convict.

The Democratic Party never seriously considered removing him before any legal process played out, because the cost of losing a two-term sitting president was enormous.

Same party. Same basic question. A very different answer, and the difference wasn’t the evidence. It was the price tag.

IT ISN’T A DEMOCRATIC DISEASE

Republicans run the same math, they just show their work differently. Brett Kavanaugh faced Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony under oath, and the GOP fought for him on exactly the due-process grounds Democrats are only now rediscovering, because a Supreme Court seat with a lifetime appointment attached is about as expensive an asset as American politics produces. Roy Moore, an Alabama Senate candidate accused of pursuing relationships with teenagers decades earlier, got disavowed by national Republicans and then endorsed anyway by Donald Trump once the seat looked winnable either way. Same party, two different prices on the same kind of allegation, because the seat’s value changed and the man’s didn’t.

Trump himself is the extreme case. More than a dozen public accusations, an Access Hollywood tape, and a civil jury finding him liable for sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case, and the party nominated him three times anyway. When the asset is expensive enough, due process stops being a courtesy extended to the accused and becomes something closer to a hostage negotiation with your own base.

SAME PARTY, WILDLY DIFFERENT MATH

You don’t even need to leave the Democratic Party to see the pattern repeat. Al Franken faced groping allegations in 2017 and resigned within about two months, before the Senate Ethics Committee’s investigation ever concluded, under pressure from roughly three dozen of his own colleagues. Some of those same colleagues later said, out loud, that they’d moved too fast without the process actually running its course.

Andrew Cuomo faced multiple accusers starting in early 2021 and hung on for seven months, through an independent Attorney General investigation that substantiated the claims, through an impeachment inquiry, before finally resigning. Franken had a first Senate term and no independent machine of his own. Cuomo had three terms as governor and one of the most entrenched political operations in the state. The process that applied to each man wasn’t a function of what happened. It was a function of how hard he’d be to replace.

Platner had been a nominee for roughly six weeks. He didn’t get seven months. He didn’t get Franken’s two. He got three days.

THE MECHANISM RUNS IN REVERSE TOO

It’s not just that parties drop the accused when he’s cheap. They also drop the charges when the accused is useful. Eric Adams was indicted in 2024 on federal bribery and fraud charges. In 2025, the Trump DOJ sought to dismiss the case entirely. The charges were dismissed after the DOJ sought dismissal, citing reasons unrelated to the underlying evidence. Critics, including the presiding judge, argued the timing suggested political considerations had overtaken the prosecution. Whatever the motivation, the evidence itself had not been adjudicated.

Matt Gaetz never faced criminal charges after a multi-year DOJ sex trafficking investigation closed without an indictment, but his political career ended anyway once a House Ethics report and a Senate confirmation fight made him too expensive to install as Attorney General. No trial ran its course in either direction. The process wasn’t legal. It was actuarial.

THE THESIS, STATED PLAINLY

Political parties are not courts, and they’ve never once behaved like courts. What they run instead is a continuous, unstated cost-benefit calculation: is this person worth more to us defended or discarded, and does the answer change if we wait. “Due process” gets invoked when the answer is “defended.” “The good of the movement” gets invoked when the answer is “discarded.” Neither phrase describes a standard. Both describe a price.

That’s a harder thing to be angry about than hypocrisy, because hypocrisy has villains and this doesn’t, really. It has an incentive structure that both parties built independently and that neither has any reason to dismantle, because it works exactly as designed. It protects expensive people and discards cheap ones, and it does this regardless of what actually happened, which means it fails the accuser and the accused in the exact same motion.

WHAT ACTUAL DUE PROCESS WOULD REQUIRE

If a party wanted to prove it valued due process rather than renting the phrase when convenient, the fix isn’t complicated, it’s just expensive in a different way. An independent ethics review process, triggered automatically by a credible allegation, with a fixed timeline that doesn’t compress or expand based on how many points a candidate is polling. A body that isn’t the campaign, isn’t leadership, and isn’t accountable to the same donors deciding whether to keep writing checks. Something closer to what an actual Ethics Committee investigation is supposed to be, minus the part where colleagues can still short-circuit it the moment the political weather changes.

Nobody is building that. Not the DNC, not the RNC, because an actual independent process is a liability precisely when it matters most: it can clear someone expensive, and it can take a long time doing it while donors panic. A 68-hour political calculation is fast, deniable, and always available. A real investigation is none of those things. Parties will keep choosing the tool that serves them over the one that serves the truth, right up until the day that choice costs them an election instead of just a nominee.

WHERE THAT LEAVES US

Graham Platner may be guilty. He may be innocent. We still don’t know.

But we do know something else: political parties have quietly replaced due process with risk management. That’s the precedent they keep setting, regardless of who’s accused.

The next time it happens, don’t ask whether the evidence changed.
Ask what the accused was worth.

Uncomfortable is reader-supported. If pieces like this are worth something to you, consider subscribing.

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

They're Betting You Don't Remember: Severity Without Memory

Rxan Smith — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:46:37 GMT

Yesterday the Iran ceasefire collapsed again. New strikes, new retaliation, oil already climbing. Before that it was a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship. Before that it was Venezuela.

Quick question. Can you remember what actually happened with any of them? Not your opinion of it. The facts. The promises made. The follow-up that never came.

Most people can’t. That isn’t because you’re stupid. It’s because forgetting has become one of the most profitable industries on Earth.

And that’s a bigger story than whatever’s leading your feed this morning.

Nothing resolved. Attention rotated. This morning the U.S. struck Iran again and Iran hit back at Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar. The ceasefire is over, and it’s already competing with a NATO summit and a Senate scandal in Maine for headline space. The last row is the one that should bother you most: a debunked rumor about emergency presidential powers hit a higher peak attention score than any real crisis on this list, including the capture of a sitting head of state. Then it vanished too.

The Argument

This is not about bias. It is about structure.

That distinction between a crisis concluding and a crisis being abandoned is the thing modern media is engineered to prevent you from noticing.

This is not a conspiracy. It is an argument about architecture, the architecture of an outrage cycle governed by algorithmic amplification and the psychology of an attention economy that has no financial interest in your long-term understanding of anything.

The structure is working exactly as designed.

Policy timelines operate in months or years. Attention expires before accountability can begin. This is not prioritization. This is interruption.

The Pattern

It is not one story. It is every story.

The Venezuela story has carried too much weight in this argument. One example is an anecdote. Five examples across different administrations, different parties, different news cycles, that is a pattern. Here is the pattern.

Notice how fast each one gets replaced. The Iran ceasefire is hours old and it’s already sharing space with a NATO summit and a Senate scandal. Give it a week and something newer will bury it completely, the same way every story on this list buried the one before it.

The specific stories change. The structure doesn’t. Crisis arrives. Urgency peaks. Coverage rotates. Consequences compound in the dark. If this pattern only happened once, it would be a news failure. Happening across every major story for twenty years, it is a system design.

The Hidden Mechanism

Emotional front-loading

Research into attention economy psychology shows negative news fades faster than positive news because emotional intensity is front-loaded. The brain experiences urgency first and processing later. Modern platforms never allow the later phase.

The audience did not demand shorter news cycles. The environment trained shorter attention. You are not informed sequentially. You are stimulated continuously.

Internal Meta research disclosed by whistleblower Frances Haugen confirmed that anger and fear outperform positive emotions in engagement metrics by a significant margin. Outrage is not collateral damage from a broken system. It is the product the system was designed to sell.

Nobody had to conspire. The math did the conspiring. Nobody needed a smoke-filled room. Nobody needed to coordinate. Nobody needed to hate democracy. Every platform optimized for engagement because engagement paid more. Every politician adapted because attention rewarded spectacle over follow-through. Every publisher chased the algorithm because visibility paid the bills. The outcome looks coordinated because incentives keep producing the same destination without anyone sharing a map. Eight hundred billion dollars in annual digital advertising revenue requires your sustained emotional activation, and a perfectly legal system of incentives has been optimizing toward that number for two decades.

Devil’s Advocate

Attention has always been short.

The reasonable objection: People forgot stories in the 1950s too. Humans cannot care about everything indefinitely. Maybe this is natural prioritization. Maybe attention has always moved before consequences arrived.

That objection is partially correct and entirely beside the point.

The issue is not that humans forget. The issue is that for the first time in history, forgetting has been monetized at industrial scale. Humans have never before carried a machine in their pocket specifically engineered to interrupt that attention every few seconds, then sell the interruption to advertisers.

That is not a continuity with the 1950s. That is a phase change. The forgetting was always human. The acceleration is new.

Yes, media companies optimize for engagement because engagement works. Users click urgency, share outrage, and reward novelty over follow-up. A false rumor about emergency presidential powers became Snopes’ most-read story of 2025, outperforming every verified global crisis on the list.

The infrastructure exploits psychology. Participation remains voluntary. The machine runs on audience behavior as much as algorithms. Which makes you both the victim and the primary investor.

Every time you screenshot the outrage of the day and send it to your group chat. Every time you refresh for the update on the story you were enraged about four hours ago and have already half-forgotten. Every time you feel genuinely, righteously informed for forty-seven seconds before the next thing lands, you are not resisting the machine. You are the machine.

The Real Cost

What gets crowded out

The greatest damage is not misinformation. It is displacement. Every degree of public attention devoted to the spectacular is a degree withheld from the structural.

These stories lack spectacle. Therefore they lack trend velocity. Therefore they lack attention. Therefore they lack democratic pressure. That is not an accident of the news cycle. That is a feature of it.

The Beneficiaries

Who benefits from the forgetting?

This is the point where people start looking for villains. There doesn’t need to be one.

When public attention expires before consequences arrive, every institution gains breathing room. Politicians make promises that outlive the news cycle. Corporations survive scandals that disappear before reforms materialize. Bureaucracies implement decisions long after the public stopped watching. Interest groups quietly win battles that never become trends.

The benefit is not immunity from criticism. The benefit is immunity from sustained criticism.

A scandal can survive a week of outrage. Few institutions can survive a year of scrutiny.

That distinction matters because accountability is not an event. It is a process. It requires memory. It requires repetition. It requires citizens willing to ask the same question in July that they asked in January.

The modern attention economy excels at many things. Maintaining pressure is not one of them.

When attention moves faster than consequences, power doesn’t need to defeat accountability.
It only needs to outlast it.

The Uncomfortable Conclusion

You are not going to like this part.

You think you are a victim of this system. You are also its primary investor. Your engagement is not a byproduct of the attention economy. It is the economy.

What the math produced is a civilization that is simultaneously the most informed and the most amnesiac in human history. You know more about what is happening in the world than any citizen in any prior era. And you will remember almost none of it.

The attention economy isn’t selling you information. It’s renting your memory back to you, one outrage at a time. And every time it convinces you to forget yesterday for today’s headline, the people who needed one more week without scrutiny just got it.

The consequences of these stories don’t trend. They compound. They show up in your foreign policy, your fuel prices, your grandchildren’s geography. They show up everywhere except the place where democratic accountability is supposed to live, which is your sustained attention.

The question worth asking in 2026 is not whether these crises are real. They are. It is not whether the media is biased. It is. The question, the one that indicts all of us and that none of us want to answer honestly, is whether a democratic system can survive being governed by citizens whose attention expires faster than any policy can mature.

The press did not lose its memory. We stopped paying it to have one.

The most subversive thing you can do right now is remember something from last month. Not the feeling of it. The facts of it. What happened, what was promised, what was never followed up on, what quietly became permanent while you were watching the next fire.

Memory is not nostalgia. In this environment, memory is a threat to the business model.

Which is exactly why they’re betting you don’t have any left.

Based on every number we’ve got so far,

we f**king do not.

And that’s not a glitch.

That’s the business model.

Sleep tight.

🎤💧

- R❌AN SMITH

Hungary for More

Sources & Data: Attention scores, editorial estimate based on relative coverage volume, top trending U.S. media stories, Jan-Jul 2026. Google Trends / Axios / Schema Design (median story lifespan). Parse.ly analytics (median article lifespan). Gloria Mark, UC Irvine (attention span research, 47s avg. / 40s median). Frances Haugen / Meta (internal engagement research disclosures). Statista / Emarketer (2025 digital ad revenue). NPR, AP (U.S.-Iran ceasefire collapse, July 8-9, 2026). NYT (Judge Hannah Dugan sentencing, July 2026). Snopes (most-read story data, 2025).

The Ceasefire Was Never The Point

Rxan Smith — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 21:11:02 GMT

Yesterday, three tankers got hit in the Strait of Hormuz. One of them, a Qatari LNG carrier, caught fire and sat there at risk of exploding. The US called it a clear ceasefire violation and launched strikes on more than 80 Iranian targets: air defenses, command nodes, coastal radar, anti-ship missiles, IRGC boats. Iran responded with missiles and drones on US-allied bases in Kuwait and Bahrain, and hit shipping again. Oil jumped more than 6 percent in a single day, the biggest move in over a month.

And somewhere in the middle of all that, standing at a podium in Ankara at a NATO summit, one man decided the ceasefire was over.

"I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore. They're scum."

That's the quote. Not a Pentagon briefing. Not a congressional vote. A guy answering a question from reporters on the sidelines of a summit about something else entirely, and with that sentence, a deal that took months to negotiate, that reopened a strait carrying 20 percent of the world's oil, effectively stopped mattering.

Here's the steelman, because Iran earned this response. Attacking commercial shipping in an international waterway is an act of war against global commerce, not just against the US. Nobody sensible is arguing Iran gets a pass here.

But that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is who gets to flip the switch, and the answer should bother you regardless of what you think about Iran.

Congress hasn't formally declared war since 1942. Since then, presidents of both parties have increasingly relied on Authorizations for Use of Military Force, executive authority, and broad interpretations of commander-in-chief powers to do the same thing without the vote. This isn't a Trump problem. Obama bombed Libya without authorization. Biden struck the Houthis without one either. The mechanism doesn't care whose name is on it. It's been under construction since the 1940s, one administration at a time, and every single one of them, red and blue, has taken the power that was offered rather than handed it back.

So when a deal that reopens a fifth of the planet's oil supply can be declared "over" in a press gaggle, on a mood, with no vote and no debate, that's not a Trump story. That's the actual story. The infrastructure that let one executive decision move global oil prices before breakfast has been sitting there fully built, waiting for whoever's turn it was next.

Watch the headlines split into "Trump is reckless" and "Trump is finally tough on Iran." Watch both sides argue about the mascot while the mechanism that let this happen goes completely unmentioned. That's not an accident. The system was never built to be watched. It was built to be cheered for or booed at, depending on the jersey.

So sure, pick a side on Iran today. Most of you will. But the question that outlives this administration and the next one is the only one that matters: who should have the authority to pull this country toward war? Until somebody answers that, we're not electing presidents. We're renewing the lease on a machine that never stops accelerating, and just switching out who gets to hold the wheel.

Make it uncomfortable.

Winning Arguments, Losing America

Rxan Smith — Tue, 07 Jul 2026 13:54:25 GMT

“Both parties are running the same scam with different branding. You get half the lies you want and none of the results you need.” - R❌AN SMITH ·

Picture a restaurant that has given you food poisoning seven times.

Not “felt a little off.” Poisoned. Doubled over, up at 3 a.m., questioning whether your own stomach can be trusted anymore. Seven times, confirmed, on the record.

You go back for the eighth meal.

Not because the kitchen changed. Not because an inspector showed up. You go back because the guy screaming outside the restaurant next door scared you more than your own symptoms did. He said something about their kitchen. You didn’t check. You didn’t have to. Fear doesn’t require verification. It just requires volume.

That isn’t a hypothetical. That’s every election you’ve lived through since you started paying attention.

Here is the cleanest way to say an ugly thing: American politics stopped being a contest over governance a long time ago. It became a permanent argument about whose team has better values. The argument never ends because it was never built to end. Ending it would put everyone currently profiting from it out of a job.

Both parties (yes, both, every time someone flinches at that word they prove the point) run the identical playbook with different branding. The playbook has two columns. Column one is promises they know they won’t keep, included specifically because the voter needs to hear them. Column two is what they actually believe and intend to do, sold with reasons that are mostly fabricated because the real reasons don’t poll.

You get half a menu of lies and half a menu of spin. You order everything. The kitchen brings nothing. You leave a five-star review anyway, because the review was never really about the food. It’s about which restaurant you’ve decided you belong to.

The Two-Column Con

PANDER means they know it isn’t happening. PROP means the intent is real, but the framing is dishonest. DELIVERED, on both sides, is a blank line. That’s the honest tally.

On the left, the pander is full debt cancellation and Medicare for all, the real version, not the managed retreat. The prop is climate legislation with the real costs hidden and the timeline dishonest, plus taxing the rich, a phrase defined conveniently and enforced selectively.

On the right, the pander is sealing the border permanently, completely, immediately, and balancing the budget, a promise renewed every cycle and broken every cycle. The prop is tax cuts sold as growth but structured for donors, plus deregulation whose actual beneficiaries never make it onto the slide.

The Feedback Loop

What this produces is a voter who gets exactly half of what they wanted to hear and none of what they actually needed. That shouldn’t feel like a win. It does anyway, because it doesn’t feel like nothing. It feels like a fight. A fight feels like stakes. Stakes feel like participation. Participation, however hollow, scratches the itch. The system hacked the feedback loop, and nobody had to hide the wiring, because nobody was looking for it.

The left base hears “we’ll cancel your debt” and “we’ll insure everybody” every two to four years. It doesn’t happen. But someone on the other side is making noise about something frightening, and the threat feels real enough that voting defensively becomes more urgent than demanding delivery. The threat becomes the product. Fear becomes the renewable energy source of the whole operation.

The right base hears “we’ll seal the border” and “we’ll stop the spending” every cycle. It doesn’t happen either. Deficits grow under both parties with the reliability of a subscription you keep forgetting to cancel. But someone on the other side wants to take something from you. The something changes. The fear doesn’t.

“You get half a menu of lies and half a menu of spin. You order everything. They bring nothing. You leave a five-star review.”

The Underlying Theorem

If your political identity is entirely downstream of your team’s survival, your beliefs aren’t beliefs. They’re jersey colors. Jersey colors don’t require results, only wins. The game is the point. Governance is the preseason nobody watches.

This is where both sides lose the right to be angry at the other. Not because the anger is wrong (it’s often completely justified), but because the anger keeps getting routed straight back into the machine that produces the problem. You’re furious at the output. You keep feeding the input. Both of those facts live in the same body at the same time, and almost nobody says so out loud, because saying so out loud feels like losing.

A principle isn’t a principle if it comes with an asterisk that reads “except when my team needs the win.” The claim that one party is uniquely destroying democracy has survived twenty years of the other party also expanding executive power, surveilling citizens, and cutting deals with the same pharmaceutical and financial industries it campaigns against. The claim that the other party owns fiscal responsibility has survived decades of expanding the deficit faster than the side it accuses. Neither side deletes the tweet. Neither side loses a voter.

That is not two principled disagreements. That is one long institutional lie wearing two different logos.

The Irony Nobody Says Out Loud

The most uncomfortable fact here isn’t that politicians are corrupt, lazy, or cynical. That’s Tuesday. The genuinely uncomfortable fact is that the voters most vocal about being betrayed, most furious about the state of things, most likely to share a post about how broken the system is, are the ones keeping it fed.

You cannot be the audience, the ticket buyer, the revenue model, and the victim all at once without owning some part of the outcome. At some point, the person who keeps going back to the restaurant that’s poisoned them seven times owns part of the eighth meal.

“You can’t be the one who keeps picking these people and also get to be simply outraged at what they do.”

The parties understand this completely, which is why they have zero incentive to change. The emotional loop (outrage, threat, rally, vote, repeat) requires no deliverables whatsoever. A franchise doesn’t need to win the championship every year. It needs you to care whether it does. Caring is the product. Everything else is set dressing.

What would actually be radical isn’t a third party, a reform movement, or a fresh set of values. It’s voters who decide that beliefs without accountability are decoration, that a platform is a contract and not a vibe, that losing an election after actually trying to govern is more honorable than winning one by promising the moon and building a parking lot.

That version of civic participation terrifies everyone currently getting paid off the argument. Which is, conveniently, everyone currently winning it.

And finally.

Every two years, somebody on television tells you this is the most important election of your lifetime. I have now heard that sentence in every election since I was old enough to vote in one. At some point “the most important election of your lifetime” stops being an emergency and starts being a subscription renewal notice. Same font. Same urgency. Renews automatically whether you read it or not.

Here is what nobody wants to hear: civic duty, the actual kind, is boring. It is reading the bill instead of the headline about the bill. It is showing up to the county meeting where there are more folding chairs than people. It is voting in the primary, the one election where your vote might have mattered, before the general turned it into a coin flip between two people neither party fully believed in six months earlier. Almost nobody does that. Everybody does the fun version instead: the profile picture, the argument with a stranger’s aunt that runs until 1 a.m., the share of the post engineered to make your blood pressure do a lap. That is not civic duty. That is buying the jersey and calling it a workout.

You want to be furious at somebody? Start with the guy in the mirror who hasn’t missed a fight on his phone in four years and can’t name his own city council. Then work your way up. There is plenty of fury to go around, and the people actually running the con would very much prefer you spend all of it on each other.

I am not telling you to stop caring. I am telling you to notice what you have been asked to care about, and who benefits from you caring about that instead of the thing underneath it. The show is not the same thing as the stakes. One of them is designed to hold your attention. The other is designed to keep your money, your labor, and your kid’s future quietly moving in one direction while you are busy watching the show.

The restaurant is still poisoning people. It just rolled out a new special this week, and you are already arguing about whether it beats whatever the place across the street is serving.

Eat somewhere that doesn’t make you sick. Or better yet, ask why there are only two restaurants in a town this size.

Make it uncomfortable.

R❌AN SMITH

If you agreed with everything you just read, read it again.
If you disagreed with everything, definitely read it again.
Either way, share it with someone who’ll argue with you.
That’s where better ideas usually begin.
Share

Agree, disagree, or think this missed the mark entirely? That’s the comment section, right below. Use it.

Keep the Conversation Uncomfortable

If this challenged your assumptions, that’s the point.

I don’t write for teams. I write for people who care more about truth than tribe and solutions more than slogans.

☕ Support Independent Journalism

If you’d like to help keep this work independent:

☕ Buy Me a Coffee
https://buymeacoffee.com/rxansmith (replace if different)

💙 PayPal
https://paypal.me/rxansmith (replace if different)

🎙️ Watch & Listen

▶ YouTube
https://youtube.com/@RealRxanSmith

🎧 Podcast Archive
(Add podcast link if applicable)

Join the Conversation

𝕏 X (Twitter)
https://x.com/rxannsmith

🧵 Threads
https://threads.net/@rxansmith

📸 Instagram
https://instagram.com/rxansmith

🎵 TikTok
https://tiktok.com/@rxansmith

👥 Facebook
https://facebook.com/Rxan.M.Smith

Comfort informs. Discomfort transforms.
Make it uncomfortable.

Rxan Smith
Independent. Evidence-Based. Uncomfortable.

The Five You Chose

Rxan Smith — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:14:25 GMT

Rxan Smith · Uncomfortable · Reader Ballot Result

Eight months ago I told you: “America doesn’t have a left problem or a right problem. America has a structural problem.”

Twenty-five episodes later, I had a book. Twenty-five changes that would help the most people in the biggest ways - if you could actually build them.

That’s the catch. Most of them cost money. Transparency was number one. Tax reform was number two, and I made the case that those two could theoretically help fund a chunk of the rest.

Not all of it. Not even close.

With Value Added Tax (VAT) Implementation that's half the average rate of Europe, we'd come close to healthcare - but with the pricing structure we have now, fixing it the way the book proposed runs somewhere around $30 trillion over ten years. That’s not a rounding error. That’s the number that turns “idealistic” into “dead before reaching committee hearing.”

So a few weeks ago, I tried something different. I handed you fourteen candidates and asked you to help write chapter twenty-six — not more idealism, but representational reforms that cost $0, change everything, and make politicians on both sides of the aisle beg for the next question.

You didn’t just vote. You argued. Some of you cited case law. One of you cited Donald Trump as Exhibit A for conflict of interest, which - fair. I read every ranked comment personally, over three weeks, and it forced me to do something I don’t usually do in public: show my work in real time, the same way I ask you to show yours.

Here’s how I counted it, so you can check my math.

The scoring: every ranked comment got weighted — 5 points for a #1 pick, down to 1 point for #5. No favorites. No editorial thumb on the scale. Just the math.

And before anyone asks — yes, every vote counted here came from a real person who took the exercise seriously enough to rank, not just react.

Thank you to everyone below — in the comments, and scattered through the Notes on this publication — who dropped a ballot, or just added real thinking to the question underneath all of this: what would actually change this country.

· · · · · · · · · ·

This piece exists because you did the work.

Five reforms separated themselves from the pack. Here they are, in your words.

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

1. END DARK MONEY POLITICS

Nearly everyone who voted put this in their top two. Ed Smith put it bluntly: the problem isn’t policy, it’s the infrastructure both parties built underneath policy — and Citizens United sits at the foundation of that infrastructure. The Unwavering framed it as part of a bigger diagnosis: dark money, Pentagon opacity, stock trading, gerrymandering, transparency failures — all different symptoms of the same disease, institutions that have learned to protect themselves from the public instead of serving it.

Nobody in the comments disagreed with that framing. They just disagreed on which symptom to treat first. You told me: treat this one first.

2. BAN GERRYMANDERING

Steven Erick made the sharpest version of this case: confine redistricting to census years, no exceptions, drawn by an impartial body, paired with an expanded House to actually improve representation instead of just reshuffling the same 435 seats. Ed Smith’s version was blunter — gerrymander every ten years, no exceptions, full stop.

Different levels of detail, same instinct: the election shouldn’t be decided before anyone votes.

3. CONGRESSIONAL STOCK TRADING BAN

This is the one nobody left off their ballot. Nine for nine. Not always ranked first — most of you put it fifth, the closer — but every single reader who voted included it. That’s rare. When a reform shows up on every ballot regardless of ideology or priority, that’s not enthusiasm, that’s consensus. Ed Smith’s line stuck with me: he’s sure we all know someone who traded on inside information and served time. Members of Congress, largely, have not.

4. NATIONAL TRANSPARENCY PORTAL

This one split the room in an interesting way — most readers ranked it low or left it off, but the two who included it put it first. Steven Erick’s case: transparency isn’t just one fix among fourteen, it’s the root cause underneath the other thirteen, because professional integrity is impossible to enforce on people you can’t see clearly. Claire Clelland made the same call independently, transparency portal at the top of her list.

Small group, strong conviction, good argument. That’s how it earned the fourth slot.

5. CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

The reform I was most surprised to see crack the top five, and the one I want to be honest with you about. Steven Erick’s case was that permanent incumbency breeds entitlement to serve. It’s a real argument, and readers clearly felt it.

Here’s the steelman for the other side, because I’d be lying to you if I left it out: some political science on term limits suggests they don’t reduce the power of money and lobbying, they just redirect it toward unelected staff and industry experts who become the only people in the building who know how anything actually works. Term limits might treat the symptom of career politicians while making the underlying capture problem worse, not better.

You voted for it anyway. I’m honoring the vote. But you should sit with that tension the same way I had to.

6? THE SIXTH ONE

Before I read a single reader comment, I ran this same ballot through my own analysis plus two additional, independent AI analysis engines… same fourteen reforms, same rules, no coordination between any of them. To keep this honest, I scored all three exactly the way I scored your ballots: 5 points for a model’s #1 pick, down to 1 point for its #5. No system got extra weight for being newer, longer, or more confident-sounding than the others.

All three systems agreed on A and D immediately… same as you. But where your votes cooled on K and warmed toward E and F, all three AI passes did the exact opposite. That’s the gap this section is about.

REGULATORY CAPTURE REFORM.

Zero of you put it in your top five. Not one ballot.

I think I know why. Dark money and gerrymandering and stock trading bans are visible. You can picture the villain. Regulatory capture is quieter — it’s the FDA advisory panel with three former pharma executives on it, the FAA safety board staffed by ex-Boeing people, the bank regulator who used to work at the bank. It doesn’t have a face. It just has a body count you never connect to the cause.

Every independent model said this is one of the deepest problems on the ballot. Every reader said it’s the one they feel the least. Both things are true at once, and that gap is the whole reason this publication exists.

So I’m doing something I told you I wouldn’t do at the start of this. I’m adding a sixth.

Five, because you voted. A sixth, because the machine doesn’t stop being real just because nobody can see it.

K. Regulatory Capture Reform joins the next five episodes.

The Declaration isn’t finished. It never was going to be. You just proved that the argument works — that people who disagree about almost everything can still look at the same fourteen problems and mostly agree on which five are real.

That’s not a small thing. Don’t let anyone talk you out of noticing it.

- R❌AN SMITH

UNCOMFORTABLE · LESS OUTRAGE. MORE EVIDENCE.

MORE UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATIONS.

Nine Robes, No Shame: The United States Supreme Court

Rxan Smith — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 15:36:53 GMT

The Supreme Court was designed to protect the law from power.
Increasingly, it looks like the place where power goes to protect itself… with a gavel stamp, a lifetime appointment, and a luxury fishing trip on somebody else’s jet. - Rxan Smith The Uncomfortable Truth

Let me be direct. Choosing between two permanent political tribes has never made sense to me… not when both sides treat loyalty like morality and disagreement like betrayal..

So I say this…

Not as a Democrat.

Not as a Republican.

As an American who still believes there should exist one institution that operates above the treeline of partisan warfare. Give me one that pretends well.

And before anyone pretends independent media itself is neutral.. everybody has a lens. The difference is whether you disclose it honestly or smuggle ideology through the side door in the costume of objectivity. What’s wrong with this country is bad for both sides. If it isn’t, it goes to the back of the line.

We were told the Supreme Court was that institution. The place where politics stopped at the door. For a meaningful stretch of history, enough people believed it to make it function.

We don’t believe it anymore.

The remarkable thing isn’t that the Court has drifted. Institutions drift. It’s that the people on it have stopped pretending to care that you noticed.

If this court is going to rule straight down party lines, we need to be honest about what it is. And if we’re honest about what it is, we need a serious talk about why we still need it.

If you are already a subscriber, please consider upgrading here subscription to make sure this publication survives. If a paid subscription isn’t in the cards right now, you can still keep this work independent. Please consider supporting me on Buy Me a Coffee or PayPal. Every contribution goes directly into keeping me free of sponsors, ads, and anyone who’d want a say in what gets written. An informed public is nearly impossible to manipulate: our goal.

PayPal Tip

The Confirmation Game

You want a seat on the highest court in the land. You testify, under oath, about your judicial philosophy. This is where you perform your sincerity… assuring serious senators that you respect precedent. That stare decisis is sacred to you.

They nod. They vote. You get the robe.

Gorsuch told the committee in 2017 a good judge would treat Roe as precedent like any other. Kavanaugh called it “an important precedent.” Alito said reaffirming a decision “strengthens its value.” Barrett called it “settled law”… after signing a public ad calling for its abolition.

In 2022, all four voted to overturn Roe in Dobbs, eliminating a constitutional right fifty years of Americans had structured their lives around. A right reaffirmed… their word… repeatedly. Senator Susan Collins, who confirmed two of them, said the ruling contradicted what they told her.

Reasonable people can argue the merits of Dobbs. What’s not debatable: the issue isn’t whether they technically lied under oath. It’s whether they deliberately cultivated ambiguity to secure confirmation for outcomes they already intended. Because that sounds exactly like what happened.

These weren’t judges discovering a new argument on the bench. These were people who knew what they intended, but said whatever got them confirmed.

Know someone who’d rather be right than comfortable? Send them this.

The Billing Department

Nothing clarifies an institution’s values like money.

Clarence Thomas accepted luxury travel, private jets, yacht cruises, and undisclosed gifts from Republican billionaire Harlan Crow for more than two decades. Not once. Virtually every year. ProPublica’s 2023 investigation revealed Crow also bought Thomas’s mother’s house and covered a relative’s private school tuition. Ethics experts said the nondisclosure appeared to violate federal law.

Thomas’s defense: colleagues told him “personal hospitality from close personal friends” wasn’t reportable. He amended his disclosures, calling the omissions inadvertent. The Senate Judiciary Committee then found at least three more undisclosed jet flights. Twenty-plus years. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. The defense: I forgot.

Alito wasn’t about to let Thomas have all the fun. He accepted a private-jet Alaskan fishing trip from hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer… who has donated over $80 million to Republican organizations and had business before the Court. Alito didn’t disclose. Didn’t recuse.

Then came the flags. An upside-down American flag (a Stop the Steal symbol) flew outside Alito’s Virginia home in January 2021. An “Appeal to Heaven” flag, also carried by Capitol rioters, flew at his beach house in 2023. Asked to recuse from Trump’s immunity case, his response was elegant in its audacity: my wife is fond of flying flags; I am not. He was “therefore required to reject” the request.

Trump praised him for it. That should tell you something.

The King’s New Clothes: Presidential Immunity

In July 2024, the Court ruled 6–3 in Trump v. United States that former presidents get absolute immunity for “core constitutional powers” and presumptive immunity for other official acts. Six Republican appointees. Three Democratic. Straight down the line.

Issued on the term’s last day, the ruling guaranteed Trump’s federal election-subversion trial couldn’t proceed before November. Sotomayor’s dissent: it makes a mockery of the principle that no man is above the law, creating a law-free zone around the president.

Let’s be uncomfortable about this. The Founders… the people originalists claim to channel… fought a revolution against a monarch who couldn’t be held accountable. They never wrote “immunity” into the Constitution. Six justices looked at two centuries of that principle and decided the man who appointed three of them deserved special protection.

If you’re on the right and cheering, a hypothetical: a Democratic president commits a real federal crime using the powers of the office. Are you comfortable handing every future president a legal force field? Or did you only want the immunity to apply to your guy?

The law was never supposed to bend for a name. The moment it does, it isn’t law anymore. It’s a loyalty test with a marble facade.

The 14th Amendment Had a Good Run…

(But it Barely Kept Running)

In June 2025, in Trump v. CASA, the Court limited nationwide in junctions… meaning an executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which every lower court found likely unconstitutional, could take effect against people who hadn’t personally sued. Then, last week, the Court struck the order down in Trump v. Barbara. Roberts and Barrett crossed over. Three justices… Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch… were ready to reread 160 years of settled constitutional text.

Credit where it’s earned: the line broke. But notice what it took… the plainest text in the Constitution, unanimous lower courts, and a 160-year precedent… to get two conservative votes. And the same week, the Court overturned Humphrey’s Executor, handing the presidency its biggest power expansion in decades.

Trump called that one the real win. He wasn’t wrong.

A court is not independent because it occasionally rules against its patron. It’s independent when you don’t have to hold your breath to find out.

But look closer at the exchange rate. The same week Trump lost on birthright citizenship… a case so textually indefensible that no honest reading of the 14th Amendment could save it… he won Slaughter, overturning ninety years of precedent and handing the presidency its largest power expansion in decades. He called that one the real victory. Publicly. Immediately.

That’s the pattern worth watching: lose the case you were never going to win, the one whose loss makes the Court look independent… and collect the structural wins that actually move power. A symbolic defeat is cheap. Control of the executive branch is not. You don’t need a backroom deal for this to work. You just need a Court that needs to look balanced more than it needs to be accountable… and a president who’s figured out that its reputation is a currency he can spend.

So here’s the question: if losing the indefensible case is what buys legitimacy for everything else… who really won last week?

The Incentive Engine:

Why Partisanship Can't Fix Itself

• uncomfortable framework •

Justices are appointed by presidents running on ideological platforms. Confirmed by senators answering to partisan bases. They serve for life with no accountability, no binding ethics enforcement, and no removal short of impeachment… which has never once succeeded against a sitting justice.

The system does not punish partisan behavior. It rewards it. A justice who rules with their appointing party’s agenda faces no consequence. One who breaks ranks becomes the next attack cycle. This is not a court anymore. It’s a third legislative chamber in black robes, staffed by unelected politicians who never face you at a ballot box.

The Scoreboard Both Sides Need to See

This isn’t a liberal or conservative argument. It’s an American one, and I’m making it to anyone with functioning eyes.

To the right: you used to care about judicial restraint. You wrote books about activist judges inventing law from the bench. What do you call a court that rewrites presidential immunity, invents a framework no founding document contemplated, and times the ruling so one specific president never faces a jury before his election? If that’s restraint, I have a yacht trip to sell you.

To the left: you’re not off the hook. When you talk about court-packing, when you celebrate rulings because you liked the outcome rather than the reasoning, when you treat justices as political allies, guess what… you’re feeding the same machine.

The answer to a partisan court is not a more partisan court.

The answer is an ethical, enforceable, accountable one.

In the 2006–07 term, nineteen of twenty-four 5–4 decisions broke on ideological lines. Alarming then. The baseline now. Abortion, guns, immunity, voting rights, affirmative action, environmental regulation… every genuinely contested case decided predictably, by a 6–3 supermajority, in the direction of whoever appointed them.

That’s not justice. It’s a scoreboard. And we’re all losing.

What Actually Fixes This

I’m not interested in burning down the institution. I’m interested in repairing it. Anyone who dismisses that distinction is more invested in the argument than the outcome. The solutions exist. They’re not radical:

Staggered 18-year term limits. Lifetime appointments made sense when life expectancy was 55… not when a 48-year-old nominee can reshape American law for four more decades. Staggered terms give every president two appointments per term and end death-watch politics. It takes a constitutional amendment… difficult, not impossible, worth the conversation.
Binding, enforceable ethics standards. Every federal judge below the Supreme Court is bound by a Code of Conduct. The nine most powerful aren’t. The Court’s voluntary 2023 code has no enforcement mechanism, and Senate Republicans blocked legislation to add one. That tells you who benefits. An independent ethics body with real authority to investigate and mandate recusal is the minimum requirement.
Automatic recusal standards. If your flags fly a movement’s symbols, if its billionaire funders paid for your vacations, if the man who appointed you is the named defendant… you don’t get to grade your own conflict. Justices currently do. That’s a punchline, not independence.
Transparency in appointments. No more strategic ambiguity dressed as judicial temperament. If you hold the seat for life, the American people are owed real answers… not a rehearsed performance of careful nothing.

None of this is about ideology.

A liberal court with no ethics enforcement is just as dangerous as a conservative one. The goal isn’t filling seats with people you agree with. It’s a system where the people in them answer to something other than the party that put them there.

The Purpose Problem

The question to sit with isn't which party wins the next appointment... Ask yourself this:

If the Supreme Court rules on party lines in every major contested case… justices appointed on ideological criteria, confirmed by partisan votes, taking undisclosed gifts from partisan donors, refusing to recuse from cases involving the men who appointed them… what exactly are we maintaining the fiction of judicial independence for?

The Court was designed to be the place where the law meant something independent of whoever held power. That is literally its purpose. If it won’t do that, it has ceased to be a court and become a caucus. And a caucus doesn’t get lifetime appointments, marble columns, and the last word on the Constitution.

The little guy is still waiting… in the same room where Exxon made forty billion in a year and took nineteen years after the Valdez spill to compensate the people it destroyed. The court was supposed to stand up for that person. That was the bargain. The justification for the robes, the tenure, the reverence. Break the bargain, and what’s left?

I’m not asking you to hate the Supreme Court. I’m asking you to stop pretending it’s something it isn’t. Institutions earn legitimacy through every act of courage required to rule against the people who put you there. This court hasn’t been earning it. It’s been spending it. The account is nearly empty.

Every time you cheer a partisan ruling that breaks your way, you’re building the machine that will be turned against you the next time the other side fills the seats.

That’s not a partisan warning. It’s a law of physics.

— Rxan Smith

🎤 💧

https://buymeacoffee.com/rxansmith | https://paypal.me/phireballsports

Support Rxan Smith The Uncomfortable Truth

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.They do not need you united

What Americans Actually Want

Rxan Smith — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:00:32 GMT

Rxan Smith | The Uncomfortable Truth | Substack

Americans disagree about a lot.

But on the issues that actually decide whether your life works, the ones that determine if you can afford rent, keep your kids healthy, retire without eating cat food, or walk down the street without worrying about random gunfire, they’re remarkably consistent.

The data is overwhelming. The pattern, across dozens of polls, ballot initiatives, and behavioral trends, is unmistakable.

Yet somehow, in the most powerful democracy in human history, the things seventy to eighty percent of the country agrees on simply… don’t happen.

Not because Americans are too divided.

Not because the problems are too complicated.

Because the system isn’t broken.

It’s working exactly as designed... just not for you.

This isn’t another both-sides rant or tribal comfort food.

This is the receipts.

A note on method: This piece uses four levels of confidence, Evidence, Behavior, Inference, Delivery. We mark each one.

PayPal

ACT 1: What You Said You Want

(We Have It In Writing)

Americans disagree about a lot. But on the issues that most directly affect their lives, they’re remarkably consistent. The problem isn’t figuring out what Americans want. The problem is what happens after they say it.

Not in a vague focus-group way. In a “we put it on a ballot and voted for it” way. In a “it passed in states with Confederate monuments” way.

Yet in the most powerful democracy in history, things seventy or eighty percent of the country agrees on just... don’t happen.

Weird. Almost like there’s a reason.

EVIDENCE

Eighty-three percent of Americans support background checks for all gun sales, including majorities of Republicans and gun owners. Support stays overwhelming. Federal law barely moves. The industry spent decades and hundreds of millions ensuring it.

More than three in four Americans want lower prescription drug prices, including pharma stockholders and “Don’t Tread On Me” Medicare card holders. A partial fix passed in 2022. Pharma spent nearly $400 million in 2024 alone keeping it partial.

Ninety-three percent call Social Security valuable; 83% say fixing its challenges is a top priority. Threats to cut it trigger unified fury. Then the threat returns.

Term limits poll at 83%. Marijuana legalization has majority support and passed in unexpected states. Paid family leave clears 60% even among Republicans.

These are majority ideas, a different category entirely. The system is bad at responding to them.

We’ve been sorted into teams so well that we’ll vote for candidates who oppose policies we’d support without the branding. The trick wasn’t making Americans disagree. It was convincing us that beating the other side mattered more than solving the problem.

Those are the receipts.

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Share
Share

ACT 2: What You Actually Did

(Behavior Already Testified)

People lie to clipboards. They say who they want to be. Then you watch what they do with money, feet, and time... and behavior files a different report.

Forget what they say. Watch what they do.

BEHAVIOR

Americans vote with moving trucks. Millions relocated last decade. Affordability consistently ranks among the leading reasons Americans relocate. They’re heading to Austin, Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, places with universities, hospitals, and infrastructure where the math works. The honest answer involves housing density and zoning reform. Unglamorous doesn’t fundraise.

Americans use government constantly while arguing it doesn’t work. Veterans who oppose spending use the VA. Farmers who hate socialism cash subsidies. Retirees who email about overreach use Medicare. Small business owners who want government off their backs took PPP loans. The argument was never about government size. It was about whose government serves whom.

Americans go broke in slow motion and call it personal failure. Credit card debt hit a record $1.277 trillion. Savings rates collapsed to 4.0% in Q1 2026 (down from 6.2%) even as income rose. People juggle multiple jobs and gig work because the math stopped working over the past several decades. They adapt with apps and couponing instead of revolting. Productivity has substantially outpaced wage growth over several decades, while a growing share of economic gains flowed to profits and higher-income households. That’s a line graph.

Americans self-medicate at historic rates. Opioids, alcohol, antidepressants, cannabis, the drug changes by zip code, but the transaction is identical: chemical relief from pain that isn’t being fixed. Economic pain. Social isolation. Lost churches, unions, and civic groups that once provided larger context. They want relief. What’s available right now isn’t addressing the root.

Enjoying Rxan Smith | Uncomfortable? Subscribe for free to never miss a post, or become a paid subscriber for exclusive content and to support independent, evidence-based journalism. Prefer a one-time contribution? ☕ Buy Me a Coffee | 💙 PayPal Your support helps keep this publication independent and growing..

ACT 3: What We Think You Want

(Guesses, Clearly Labeled)

Acts 1 and 2 were evidence. This is inference. We show you where the connections are ours.

INFERENCE

Inference 1: Americans want competence more than ideology.

Trust in institutions collapsed across the board, Congress, media, courts, presidency, health agencies, no matter which party ran them. Approval is highest for politicians tied to visible results. Specific services people use (post office, Medicare, highways) poll better than government in the abstract. Voters didn’t turn anti-government. They turned anti-disappointment. The fix isn’t smaller or bigger government. It’s government that works.

Inference 2: Americans want an actual choice.

Independent registration is at record highs. Third-party candidates poll better pre-election than on election day. The top complaint: these are really the only two options?

The system prevents alternatives. Ballot access and debate rules written by the two parties. First-past-the-post punishes deviation. Campaign finance entrenches incumbents. People aren’t choosing two parties enthusiastically. They’re choosing between two because those are the only doors with handles.

If you value market competition, a political duopoly should bother you the same way any other duopoly does. We pass antitrust law elsewhere. Here we call it democracy.

Inference 3: Americans want to belong to something real.

Church attendance and union membership have plummeted. Civic groups hollowed out. Loneliness, social media engagement, and grievance-based communities are up. People aren’t choosing isolation. The old aggregating structures collapsed and nothing adequate replaced them. What fills the vacuum offers belonging without obligation, you can participate without showing up. The hunger is real. The real version is missing.

You can’t legislate community. But economic precarity, outrage-driven media, and engagement-optimized platforms have all strengthened while power treated the collapse as background noise. It is a crisis.

Inference 4: Americans want to be told the truth.

Media trust is at historic lows. The fastest-growing outlets are independent and direct-to-audience. People aren’t consuming less news, they’re consuming it from sources that feel less managed.

They’re often chasing the feeling of being let in on something real, not accuracy, regardless of ideology. The fastest-traveling content validates more than it informs. The hunger for truth is genuine. The market frequently sells the experience of truth instead. Institutions that maintain standards have done a poor job explaining why standards matter. They’ve surrendered credibility to people who have none.

ACT 4: The Delivery Gap

(You Won’t Like This Section. That’s How You Know It’s Right.)

We’ve shown what Americans want and what their behavior proves they want. We’ve labeled our inferences.

Now we measure delivery against those wants.

THE DELIVERY GAP

Drug prices

More than three in four Americans want them lower, across parties. Democrats passed limited Medicare negotiation in 2022; Republicans opposed it. Pharma spent nearly $400 million in 2024 lobbying. Americans still pay multiples of what other developed nations pay for the same drugs. Both parties helped create the gap. The industry sustained it through decades of effective lobbying.

Social Security

Americans want it protected. The most explicit benefit-cut proposals over thirty years came from Republicans. Democrats held unified power during windows when funding could have been fixed and did not prioritize a long-term funding solution. Neither resolved the structural shortfall. The depletion clock keeps ticking.

Infrastructure

Americans want it fixed. The 2021 bipartisan bill is spending money and building projects. It took thirty years of deterioration and high-profile failures to generate the will. The system responds to visible crisis more reliably than to prevention.

Term limits

Eighty-three percent support them. For decades. The people asked to impose them are the ones who would be removed. That’s the full explanation. The most durable gap exists where the people deciding have the strongest personal incentive to say no.

Choice itself

The last third-party candidate to win electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. The bar has only gotten higher and more expensive. Ballot access, debate rules, finance, and media patterns were shaped by the two parties to favor the two parties. This gap is the most structurally entrenched, and fixing it would most directly affect every other item.

The wants are bipartisan. The failure to close the gap is bipartisan. The incentives maintaining it, donors, revolving doors, ballot architecture, media economics, run regardless of which party is in power.

Read the record.

Not the talking points.

Not the ads.

Not the content that makes you feel smartest in your feed.

The record.

The truth doesn’t care if it disrupts your identity. It doesn’t care if you’ve been wrong for fifteen years. It doesn’t care if it complicates your team story or makes dinner awkward.

The truth just sits there.

Patient.

Documented.

Waiting.

Americans agree far more than our political incentives reward.

The single most radical act available to an American right now, more radical than any protest, donation, or sign, is deciding that what’s true matters more than what’s comfortable.

Not because it feels good.

Because reality doesn’t negotiate with our identities.

- Rxan Smith | Uncomfortable

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Because history tells us that this community is the right one to be a part of right now.
PayPal Tip

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Join Rxan Smith’s subscriber chat

Available in the Substack app and on web

Join chat

Get 40% off a group subscription

SOURCE APPENDIX

Receipts.

ACT 1... Evidence

Background checks (83%+): Gallup, Morning Consult/Politico, McLaughlin (2025). PolitiFact.
Drug prices: KFF Health Tracking Poll (Mar 2026); KFF/Peterson (88% price cap support).
Pharma lobbying (\~$400M 2024): OpenSecrets.
Social Security (93% valuable, 83% priority): Bipartisan Policy Center (2025).
Term limits (83%): McLaughlin/U.S. Term Limits (2025); NPR/PBS/Marist (2026).

ACT 2... Behavior

Migration & affordability: U.S. Census 2020–2024; Pew Research.
Credit card debt ($1.277T record): NY Fed Q4 2025.
Savings rate (4.0% Q1 2026): Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Self-medication: CDC overdose data; SAMHSA National Survey (2024).

ACT 3... Inference

Institutional trust: Gallup Trust in Institutions (2000–2025); Pew.
Independent voters: Gallup Party Affiliation; Pew.
Civic decline: Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone; General Social Survey.
Media trust: Gallup/Knight Foundation 2024; Reuters Institute Digital News Report.

ACT 4... Prescription

IRA drug pricing: KFF tracking; Congressional record (Aug 2022).
Infrastructure bill: Bipartisan passage (Nov 2021).
Social Security solvency: SSA Trustees Report 2024 (depletion \~2033–2035).
Third-party history: FEC historical data (Wallace 1968).

Every major claim is backed by named, credible, nonpartisan or bipartisan sources.

The Day We Stopped Being Neighbors

Rxan Smith — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 14:23:17 GMT

Rxan Smith: The Uncomfortable Truth | | Rxan Smith Media

There’s a specific kind of loneliness that nobody talks about because it doesn’t look like loneliness.

It looks like having 800 friends online and nobody to call at 2am. It looks like knowing exactly what your coworker thinks about immigration and having no idea if their mom is sick. It looks like a neighborhood where everyone has an opinion about the country and nobody knows the person next door.

We are more connected than any humans in history.
We have never been more alone.

And somehow, we’ve decided this is fine

Buy Me a Coffee or PayPal⁠

I grew up on a street where the adults disagreed about everything. I know this because I could hear them. Through screen doors, across driveways, at the edge of lawns where conversations happened without appointments.

They voted differently. They went to different churches. One guy had a Ronald Reagan decal on rear windshield and another had a union card on his dashboard… they both showed up when Maria’s furnace broke in January.

That’s not nostalgia. That’s a description of a functional social contract that we have, without much debate, decided to abandon.

Here’s what replaced it.

Somewhere in the last twenty years, we stopped sorting people by street and started sorting them by signal. What you watch. Who you follow. What you share. Whether you said Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas. Whether you own a gun or think other people shouldn’t.

Every interaction became an audition. Every opinion became a credential. Every conversation became a loyalty test before it became a conversation.

We didn’t just become polarized. We became legible. Perfectly, permanently, algorithmically legible. And once you’re legible, you stop being a person and start being a category.

Your neighbor isn’t your neighbor anymore. They’re a data point with a lawn.

We optimized for the comfort of certainty over the discomfort of contact.

The media didn’t create this alone. Neither did the politicians. Neither did Silicon Valley — though all three made it worse and all three made money doing it.

What created it is something more embarrassing to admit: we chose it.

Not consciously. Not in a single moment. But in ten thousand small choices to stay in feeds that confirmed what we already believed, to share the thing that made our tribe feel smart and the other tribe feel stupid, to mistake the feeling of being right for the experience of understanding something.

And contact — actual, friction-generating, occasionally maddening contact with people who are not like us — is the only thing that has ever built a functioning society.

Nobody did this to us. We are not victims of polarization the way you are a victim of weather. We participate in it every single day, in choices so small they feel like nothing — the unfollow, the block, the eye-roll, the assumption before the conversation, the decision to never find out.

The people who want us divided are counting on us to believe that the division is natural. That the other side is genuinely incomprehensible. That there is nothing on the other end of that difference worth reaching for.

They need us to believe that.

Because the one thing that threatens every concentrated power structure in American history is the moment ordinary people — across every line of difference — looked at each other and said: wait, we have the same problem.

You can’t love an abstraction. You can’t trust a category.

You can’t grieve with a political position.

You can only do those things with a person

Support idependent journalism by subscribing, upgrading your membership, and/or a making contribution via Buy Me a Coffee or PayPal. Every bit helps keep the research, writing, and caffeine flowing. I appreciate all the support I received already, from the bottom of my heart 🙏
Buy Me a Coffee or PayPal

And persons require proximity. Proximity requires tolerance of difference. Tolerance of difference requires the slow, inconvenient, occasionally terrible work of staying in the room.

We have been very efficiently relieved of that obligation.

The algorithm sorted us so we didn’t have to do it ourselves. The media gave us permission to write off half the country as irredeemable. The politicians figured out that our anger was more reliable than our hope, and built their entire industry on keeping us separated and furious.

They didn’t invent the division. They just found out how to monetize it.

You don’t have to agree with your neighbor to need them.

That’s not a bumper sticker. That’s the entire premise of civilization.

Maybe the country isn’t falling apart because we disagree. Maybe it’s falling apart because disagreement used to be the beginning of a relationship and now it’s the reason we never start one.

A functioning society isn’t built when everyone thinks alike. That’s never happened anywhere. It’s built when people decide that the person across from them is more important than the argument between them.

The hardest thing in modern America isn’t changing someone’s mind.
It’s remembering they have one.

And maybe the first step back isn’t political at all. Maybe it’s learning to become neighbors again.

Every day that someone chooses contact over comfort, curiosity over contempt, the hard conversation over the clean exit — they are refusing to be sorted.

And that refusal is the only thing that has ever, in the whole of human history, made anything better.

UNCOMFORTABLE

Rxan Smith Media · The truth that makes everyone uneasy

Refuse to be sorted.

Every week, Uncomfortable delivers sharp, evidence-driven essays that cut through the noise — without tribal loyalty or algorithmic rage.

Subscribe to UncomfortableRead the archive free

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Join readers who value clarity over comfort.

Rxan Smith: The Uncomfortable Truth Substack Homepage

Thanks for Reading

Gallup: New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents

Thanks for Reading

If you value independent, evidence-driven journalism, please consider supporting my work.

Subscribe or upgrade to a paid membership.
☕ Buy Me a Coffee
💙 Support via PayPal

Explore the Rxan Smith Universe

📰 Substack
🎙️ YouTube
𝕏 X
🧵 Threads
📸 Instagram
🎵 TikTok
❤️ Patreon
📘 Facebook

Every subscription, share, comment, and contribution helps keep the research, writing, and conversations going.

America’s Largest Party Isn’t a Party.

Rxan Smith — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 13:10:20 GMT

The largest bloc is neither party

Here's a quick introduction video if you need to be convinced with audio visual… but then… you got to read…

For years, Americans have been told they have two choices.

Pick a side… Choose a team… Wear the jersey… Defend the tribe.

But almost half the country looked at both teams and quietly checked the box marked: Neither.

Forty-five percent of Americans now identify as political independents.

That's the biggest political story in the country, not a footnote.

Yet almost every political conversation in America still begins with the same assumption: There are two tribes. Pick one.

The problem is that nearly half the country already declined the offer. The largest political bloc in America is neither party. But our media ecosystem keeps acting as though everyone must eventually be sorted into one of two approved categories.

That’s the mismatch.

The country changed.

The script didn’t.

When politics is presented as a permanent red-versus-blue cage match, the public isn’t being described. It’s being managed

Trust in institutions is collapsing

The tragedy isn’t that Americans disagree.

It’s that millions of people no longer know who to trust enough to find out who’s right.

You can see it everywhere.

The friend who used to watch cable news and now refuses to.

The relative who dismisses every headline before reading it.

The person who checks three different sources because they assume somebody is leaving something out.

Trust didn’t disappear in a poll.

It disappeared in millions of individual decisions.

found that trust in the mass media fell to just 28% in 2025, a new low, with fewer than three in ten Americans saying they trust newspapers, television, and radio to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Gallup: Trust in Media at New Low of 28% in U.S.

The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 reached a similar conclusion from another angle, finding that traditional news media is struggling to connect with much of the public, with declining engagement, low trust, and stagnating digital subscriptions. Reuters Institute: Digital News Report 2025

If you are worried about oligarchy, corporate power, democratic backsliding, or institutional decay, this should set off alarms. A country where the largest political bloc is independent and trust in the press is at historic lows is not just having a messaging problem. It is suffering from a broken information system.

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

What the Left Gets Right

Before getting to the critique, let’s acknowledge something important: the left is right about many of the country’s biggest problems.

Wealth inequality is real. Corporate influence is real. Healthcare costs are absurd. Housing affordability is collapsing. Billionaires exercise outsized influence in public life. Citizens United damaged public trust in democratic institutions.

These are not fantasies cooked up in a campus seminar.

They are structural realities.

On many core issues, the public is already closer to left-populist economics than elite political discourse wants to admit.

AARP polling found that 96% of Americans say Social Security is important. KFF polling shows broad support for allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. Pew found that most Americans continue to favor raising taxes on large corporations and higher-income households. AARP Poll: Social Security Support High, Confidence Lags; KFF: 3 Charts About Medicare Drug Price Negotiations; Pew: Most Americans Continue to Favor Raising Taxes on Corporations, Higher-Income Household

The problem is not that the left sees the wrong problems.

The problem is that too many of those arguments are delivered through a media ecosystem that rewards outrage more than persuasion, posture more than clarity, and moral performance more than public understanding.

The result is a strange paradox:

The public often agrees with the diagnosis while tuning out the messenger.

That’s not a policy failure.
It’s a credibility failure..

How Media Failure Sabotages Those Arguments

If you are concerned about corporate capture, then media capture should concern you. If you are concerned about oligarchy, then information oligarchies should concern you. If you are concerned about democracy, then a system in which seven in ten Americans do not trust the mass media should concern you. Gallup: Trust in Media at New Low of 28% in U.S..

And trust did not collapse for no reason.

It collapsed after repeated institutional failures: the press amplifying Iraq WMD claims beyond the available evidence and failing to seriously interrogate the structures that led to the 2008 financial crisis until after the damage was done.

Those examples matter because they are not partisan mistakes.

They are institutional mistakes.

That distinction is important. Many younger progressives correctly distrust explicit right-wing propaganda but are often less likely to question the broader information ecosystem. If you want people to examine the structure itself, you have to show how credibility is lost not only through partisan media, but through failures inside prestige institutions as well.

Not with conspiracy theories.

With examples.

Audience Capture Is Replacing Corporate Capture

For years, we worried that corporate media was captured by advertisers. Then social media and subscription media changed the plumbing.

Now we face a newer problem: audience capture.

The New Capture

Corporate media tells audiences what advertisers want.

Audience-captured media tells audiences what audiences want.

Different masters.

Same temptation.

The old model bent coverage toward what owners, sponsors, and political insiders could tolerate.

The new model often bends coverage toward what subscribers most want emotionally reinforced.

If doom drives clicks, doom multiplies.

If flattering a tribe drives subscriptions, tribal reinforcement becomes editorial strategy.

If audiences want a nightly sermon confirming that everybody else is the problem, too many outlets will serve exactly that, complete with a self-righteous grin and a donation link.

That is audience capture.

And it is dangerous because it feels democratic while producing the same distortion.

Corporate capture edits reality to please advertisers.

Audience capture edits reality to please subscribers.

Either way, the facts get sanded down to fit the revenue model.

The left’s opportunity - and how it’s being squandered

Here is the maddening part: the left is not losing because its core economic arguments are universally unpopular. On several major issues, the public is already on its side or nearby. The problem is that the media environment often prevents those arguments from being heard clearly, consistently, and persuasively. AARP; KFF; Pew

Instead of calmly and relentlessly connecting those dots, too much of the broader left media space drifts into the same bad habits it claims to oppose: outrage cycles instead of explanation, cultural dunk contests instead of structural analysis, and endless warnings of catastrophe with very little practical sense of what would actually move people. That does not build durable persuasion. It builds a mood.

If your central fear is authoritarianism, you cannot afford a left that only talks to itself. If your central fear is oligarchy, you cannot afford a left media ecosystem that behaves like an emotional vending machine for people who already agree. If your central fear is corporate power, you cannot afford to reproduce the same incentive structures under a different logo.

5 rules for independent media that deserve the name

If independent media is going to matter, it has to be more than cable news with softer lighting and a Patreon page. It has to be structurally different.

Evidence before ideology. Start with what can be shown — polling, outcomes, budgets, historical context — then build your argument from there. Gallup on independents; Gallup on media trust
Critique allies first. It is easy to attack the other side. The test of independence is whether you can say, “our side got this wrong,” without collapsing into partisan panic.
Show your sources. If you want people to trust you more than institutions that already burned them, then transparency is not optional. Link the reports. Show the receipts. Reuters Institute; KFF; Pew
Separate reporting from opinion. Even highly opinionated outlets can distinguish between what happened and what they think it means. Blurring those lines is one of the diseases we are supposedly trying to cure.
Measure outcomes, not intentions. The question is not whether an outlet means well. The question is whether it leaves people better informed, more capable of acting, and less dependent on a constant emotional drip feed.

Rxan Smith Closing Editorial

This is not an argument against journalism. A functioning democracy needs journalism the same way a functioning body needs a nervous system. If the signals stop moving, the whole thing starts walking into walls.

The problem is that somewhere along the way, journalism stopped being treated as a public service and started being treated as a product. Politics stopped being a civic responsibility and became a team sport. Then social media arrived and turned both into a 24-hour casino where the currency is attention.

And now everyone is confused about why nobody trusts anything.

The right thinks the media is a Democratic Party super PAC with better lighting.
The left thinks the media is failing because it isn’t aggressive enough toward the right.
The media thinks the public is becoming misinformed.

And all intelligent members of the public know that all of them are full of shit.

The uncomfortable possibility is that the public sees something the experts are missing.

Not because the public is always right. Millions of people thought NFTs were a brilliant idea five minutes ago.

But because people can sense incentives.

They know when they’re being marketed to.

They know when they’re being manipulated.

They know when every story somehow arrives exactly where the audience was expected to arrive before it began.

That’s why trust isn’t collapsing only in media. It’s collapsing in political parties, Congress, corporations, universities, churches, and nearly every institution wondering why people keep leaving.

Trust is not lost when people disagree with you. It’s lost when people believe you’re no longer telling them the whole truth.

And the greatest danger facing independent media right now isn’t censorship, algorithms, or corporate pressure.

It’s audience capture.

The temptation to stop informing people and start feeding them.

To tell subscribers what they already believe.

To build communities around certainty instead of curiosity.

The tragedy is that this is happening at the exact moment the country is desperate for something better.

Half the country doesn’t identify with either major party.

Trust in media is scraping historic lows.

Most Americans agree on more economic issues than politics would ever lead them to believe.

The opening exists.

The audience exists.

The demand exists.

What doesn’t exist yet are enough institutions willing to value truth more than tribe.

Because that’s the choice.

Not left versus right.

Not mainstream versus independent.

Truth versus audience capture.

Reality versus performance.

Citizens versus customers.

The future of independent media won’t be decided by how many subscribers it gains.

It will be decided by whether it can occasionally look at its own audience and say:

“No. You’re wrong about that.”

That’s the moment honesty becomes expensive.

The moment truth risks upsetting the people paying the bills.

That’s when you find out whether you’re building journalism or a more personalized form of propaganda.

The country doesn’t need more content.

It doesn’t need more outrage.

It needs people willing to tell the truth when it’s inconvenient, unpopular, unprofitable, and occasionally directed at their own side.

Because if independent media can’t do that, then it isn’t the cure.

It’s just the next stage of the disease.

📚 Continue Reading: My Most Popular Essays

If this article resonated with you, these are six of the best places to continue exploring the ideas behind Rxan Smith: Uncomfortable.

🇺🇸 United We Stand Is a Mathematical Certainty

Unity isn’t a moral argument. It’s a mathematical one. Why America’s future depends less on ideology than on incentives.

📜 The Common Republic: Declaration of Citizenship

What if America had a new founding document for the 21st century? A vision of citizenship built around shared responsibility instead of partisan identity.

🧭 The Left vs. Right Axis Has Always Been Broken

The political spectrum we’ve inherited explains less and less about how people actually think. Here’s a better framework.

⚙️ 💲 The Price of Survival

Why millions of Americans feel like they’re working harder than ever just to stay in place, and what that reveals about the system we’ve built.

✍️ You’re Writing America’s Next Chapter

History isn’t written by politicians alone. It’s written by ordinary people deciding they refuse to accept the script they’ve been handed.

It’s Not Capitalism vs. Socialism

The debate we’ve been having for decades asks the wrong question. The real battle isn’t economic labels. It’s whether power serves the public or captures it.

Refer a friend

Make America Grow Again: 25 Structural Fixes to Save a Nation

Rxan Smith — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 12:06:16 GMT

25 Fixes Nobody Wants To Talk About

Repost from the post made in 2025 now that all episodes are done.

America isn’t “in decline.” That’s the polite NPR euphemism people use when they’re afraid to say what’s actually happening. This country started tripping over its own shoelaces in the ’80s, then balanced itself by juggling chainsaws through the ’90s, and the crowd went wild. By the new millennium, America had taken its chainsaw act onto a unicycle just to survive. Of course, by then the shoelaces were frayed… and what happens next isn’t what you’d expect. Instead of falling, all the political tribes got busy screaming into their own echo chambers, completely ignoring the real problem… the floor was on fire.

We’re not witnessing a collapse; we’re watching a slow-motion pratfall performed by a nation that once built the Hoover Dam and now can’t build a website that works on the first try.

So I decided to do what the professional hand-wringers won’t: lay out 25 structural fixes that would actually make this country grow again—not in the “manifest your dreams” Instagram sense, but in the “stop the bleeding, fix the wiring, and maybe stop lighting the curtains on fire” sense.

About This Series

This is Make America Grow Again, a 25-part, no-tribe, no-mascot, no-sedatives-required series dropping every Monday and Wednesday until all twenty-five uncomfortable truths are out in the open.

I built this series to be:

Sharp enough to cut, funny enough to sting, honest enough to make partisans on both sides clutch their pearls.
Structural, not sentimental: wiring, incentives, systems—not vibes, slogans, or campaign merch.
Aggressively non-tribal: If you need your team’s jersey protected at all costs, this is going to hurt.
Your roadmap: click, read, bookmark. This page updates live as segments drop.

If you’ve ever felt like you’re living in a country run by a bipartisan coalition of arsonists and sleepwalkers, this series is for you. And as a subscriber recommended… First things first… awakening. #StopTheViolence

How to Use This Page

Skim the full 25-step roadmap — your control panel for the project.
Click into the segments that hit your nerves first — money, media, elections, corruption. Start where it hurts.
Bookmark this page — updates as new entries drop, keeping your table of contents live.

This is the work. The unfiltered, unmedicated, unfocus-grouped truth about rebuilding a country duct-taped together by denial, nostalgia, and bipartisan magical thinking.

America can grow again. First, someone has to say the quiet parts out loud—and mean it

Stay in the Loop

Get every Monday/Wednesday installment in your inbox:
→ Subscribe Here

Share Rxan Smith

25 Fixes Make America Grow Again (Full List)

Listen up

I’m done renting rage. I’m done waiting for permission.
I’m here to write truth. Not Left, Right, or Center—because if you still think any of that works, you haven’t been paying attention.

“Make America Great Again” wasn’t magic. It was marketing.
Here’s the uncomfortable part: when Trump said it, he wasn’t wrong.
We haven’t been great in decades. But that’s not on him.
That’s on US—for letting government turn public service into a subscription plan.

We pay them… so they can own us!?!?

Click Here For Post (12/24/2026))

Share Rxan Smith

What if you could keep that energy—but make it actually mean something?

Enter: Make America Grow Again

Growth. Not just population. Not just rhetoric.
Growth in global rank. Growth in government working for the people.
Growth in reclaiming a country that can actually deliver. Real results. Not slogans.

This is uncomfortable. That’s the point.
Growth starts here.

This is me.
This is Uncomfortable.
Let’s fix it..

My 25 Government Fixes Aren’t Theory

These aren’t theories. They’re ranked, actionable, within budget, and put common sense ahead of corruption.

Since yelling at screens isn’t fixing anything, and politics-as-usual isn’t fixing anything, real change starts with growth.

Everyone loved “MAGA,” right? Hats. Chants. Energy. What if we could keep that energy—but make it mean something?

Enter: Make America Grow Again

Growth. Not just population. Not just rhetoric.
Growth in global rank.
Growth in government actually working for the people.
Growth in reclaiming a country that can deliver. Real results. Not slogans.

This is uncomfortable. That’s the point. Growth starts here.
This is me. This is Uncomfortable. Let’s fix it

Share this post: Hit someone with the truth. Let’s make Uncomfortable viral

About Me:

Fragile roots? The tree dies. Weak trunk? The canopy collapses. This is the anatomy of reform, and the blueprint is brutal.

The Roots: High-Priority Fixes (Laying the Unbreakable Foundation for Overcoming Systemic Barriers)

Neglect these, and nothing else matters. These are the deep trenches of systemic reform. Let’s dig.

Caption: Dig deep into the roots—expose corruption to fuel resilient mindset and societal growth.

1. Government Transparency

(12/22/2026)

Force every dollar and contract into daylight. Lobbyists whining? Good. Let them sweat. Democracy doesn’t work in the dark.
Difficulty: 4/5 | Timeline: 12–24 months

2. Healthcare Cost Control

Hospitals jacking prices because insurance exists? Fix it. Patients shouldn’t need a second mortgage to survive.
Difficulty: 5/5 | Timeline: 24–36 months

3. Value-Added Tax (VAT) Implementation

Click Here for the Post (12/29/2025)

Roll out a phased VAT to fund services and shrink wealth divides. Smarter money, fairer society.
Difficulty: 4/5

4. Income Inequality

Click Here for the Post (12/31/2025)

Progressive taxes + universal basics (education, healthcare). Mindset shifts start with economic justice.
Difficulty: 5/5

5. Education Access

Fund schools, erase student debt, reward elite educators. Unlock minds to shatter poverty cycles.

Difficulty: 4/5

6. Climate Change Action

Emissions caps, green energy incentives. Ignore it, and the whole tree dies.
Difficulty: 5/5

“The strongest oak of the forest is not the one that is protected from the storm and hidden from the sun. It’s the one that stands in the open where it is compelled to struggle for its existence against the winds and rains and the scorching sun.” – Napoleon Hill

Upgrade to Paid Uncomfortable

Share Rxan Smith

If Bill Maher is the Bad Guy, Then Who's the Good Guy on the Left?

Exclusive deep dives, Q&A, and tools to tackle systemic barriers. Only for those ready to face the discomfort.

The Trunk: Medium-Priority Fixes (Forging Core Strength for Resilient Mindset and Societal Reform)

Caption: Core reforms like corporate accountability for unbreakable personal and societal strength.

7. Criminal Justice Reform

Slash incarceration, rehab focus, fair sentencing. Justice isn’t a game for private prisons.

8. Voting Access

Universal mail-in + early voting. Democracy shouldn’t require a PhD or passport.

9. Technology Regulation

Tame tech giants with privacy shields and antitrust action. Monopoly is illegal—do the math.

How Unregulated AI will end the world.

10. Mental Health Access

Subsidize therapy nationwide. Minds matter.

11. Childcare Support

Affordable care liberates working parents. Societies don’t thrive without it.

12. Immigration Reform

Humane borders, clear citizenship paths. Stop the chaos, start the order.

13. Local Media & Independent Journalism Support

Fund grassroots journalism against the fake news swamp, and their ink-stained cousins, independent media and journalism stewards like me.

14. Addiction Reform

Stop treating all drug and alcohol addiction like a crime or a dark corner of society and embrace it for the awful Public Health crisis that it is, and identify the players that make sure you don't just suffer, you stay untreated.

15. Rural Development & Infrastructure

Jobs, tech, opportunity. Stop players that players people behind. Modernize roads, broadband, and utilities. Equal access or bust

16. Police Reform

Training + oversight for community trust. End abuse and impunity.

17. Corporate Capture

Ban revolving door lobbying. No more bought democracy.

18. Social Security & Medicare Protection

Fortify for aging populations. Future-proof the safety net.

19. Generational Wealth Inequality

Fair inheritance rules. Reset the game, prevent dynasties of privilege

Share this if you’re fired up: Share on X | Share on LinkedIn

The Branches: Lower-Priority Fixes (Extending Innovation and Growth for 2026 and Beyond)

Caption: Innovate with fixes like poverty-breaking stipends for massive growth.

20. National Service

Optional programs for skill-building unity.

21. Criminal Rehabilitation

Reentry investments to cut recidivism.

22. Tech Education & Workforce Prep

23. Family Formation Support

Incentives for stability. Strong families, strong society.

24. Debt Relief Programs

Forgive education/medical debt strategically. Liberation, not charity.

25. Systemic Poverty Areas

Community-driven education, relocation, property access, and stipends/jobs. Break cycles, rebuild lives.

Why the 25 Fix Tree is Your 2026 Game-Changer

Superficial patches flop. This tree attacks roots. Governments, corporations, and our own complacency are indicted. Discomfort is the catalyst. Mindset shifts, personal growth, and societal resilience are the reward.

Watch the full Episode Zero breakdown at YouTube.com/@RealRxanSmith—dive into the discomfort.

Full Episode 0

Take Uncomfortable Action: Engage and Grow the Movement

Which fix punches you in the gut? Which demands your mindset shift? Comment raw—no sugarcoating. Restack if it reframes your world. Share to amplify Uncomfortable’s reach.

Subscribe Free

Upgrade to Paid

Join the Uncomfortable revolution at rxansmith.substack.com and YouTube.com/@RealRxanSmith—where raw truth ignites explosive growth. Let’s fix what hurts in 2026.

First episode on government transparency drops tomorrow so save this post and I will update it with every single episode hyperlinks above as high publish them. This is your table of content. Let's stop fighting, and start uniting. There is no more left and right… there are just the corrupt politicians who need to be replaced, and the rest of us…

– Rxan Smith
Uncomfortable

(check out my post today on

Here’s The Rxan Smith Universe, neatly hyperlinked so you don’t have to play digital scavenger hunt like a raccoon with Wi-Fi:

Support the Work

If this series actually made you think instead of just nod along like most content online:

☕ Support via Buy Me a Coffee
💸 Support via PayPal

Follow & Watch

▶️ YouTube — Rxan Smith Uncomfortable
🐦 Twitter / X — @rxannsmith

Video

https://www.youtube.com/@RxanSmithMedia

Social

Support / Monetization

That’s the whole ecosystem, . No filler, no ghost accounts, no “link in bio” mystery novel.

Credits – The Prophets Who Called This Exact Collapse Years Ago (Go Subscribe, Follow, and Send Them Money)

Ruy Teixeira & John Judis book – Where Have All the Democrats Gone?
The Liberal Patriot Substack – Ruy Teixeira’s archive on working-class shifts: liberalpatriot.com
Richard Hanania – “Why the Political Realignment Is Permanent”: Read Here
Richard Hanania Newsletter: richardhanania.com
Matt Yglesias – “The real reason Democrats lost”: Read Here
Slow Boring Substack: slowboring.com
Nate Silver – “How Trump Won” autopsy: Read Here
Silver Bulletin Substack: natesilver.net
Zach Goldberg original “Great Awokening” thread (2019): Read Thread
Zach Goldberg Twitter: @ZachG932
John Burn-Murdoch FT piece (working-class realignment chart): Read Here
John Burn-Murdoch Twitter: @jburnmurdoch

These people were cancelled, ratio’d, and called every name in the book for telling the truth early. Now they’ve been proven right in 4K. Go give them the flowers (and the subscriptions) they earned.

Support the Work

If this series actually made you think instead of just nod along like most content online:

☕ Support via Buy Me a Coffee
💸 Support via PayPal

Follow & Watch

▶️ YouTube — Rxan Smith Uncomfortable
🐦 Twitter / X — @rxannsmith
N

Vote: Add These 5 Structural Fixes to Make America Grow Again

Rxan Smith — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 21:01:37 GMT

Eight months ago, I started this with a simple, uncomfortable premise.

America doesn’t have a left problem.

America doesn’t have a right problem.

America has a structural problem.

Twenty-five structural problems, to be precise.

The kind that survive elections.

The kind that survive presidents.

The kind that outlast outrage cycles because they are embedded so deeply into the machinery that most of us stop noticing they’re there.

Over the last eight months, I published all 25 fixes in the Make America Grow Again series. Government transparency. Healthcare. Education. Tax reform. Technology. Addiction. Voting. Corporate capture. The issues that quietly shape everything else.
The series is complete.
But the work isn’t.

The people who signed the original Declaration didn’t agree on everything. They agreed that some problems had become too large to ignore.

As Independence Day approaches, that’s what I keep coming back to.

Not the fireworks. Not the speeches. The argument. The fact that a group of people who disagreed about almost everything managed to agree on one thing: the current arrangement was no longer acceptable, and something had to be written down.

I’ve written down 25 things.

Now I want to know which five you’d add.

For the next month, readers will vote on the reforms they believe deserve a place in an expanded Make America Grow Again platform. On July 4th, I’ll publish the results. Five will be added to the series.

Not because I chose them.

Because you did.

HOW TO VOTE:

Comment below with your top 5, ranked #1 through #5. On July 4th, the results go live and the next five episodes get announced. The Declaration isn’t finished. It’s being written.

THE BALLOT: 14 Candidates. You Choose 5.

Read them all before you rank. Some of these will seem obvious. Some will make you argue with yourself. That’s the point.

A. End Dark Money Politics

Political influence should have a name attached to it. If billionaires, corporations, unions, or advocacy groups want to shape elections, voters deserve to know who is speaking and who is paying. Real-time donor disclosure. Super PAC transparency. Citizens United reform.

Core Principle: Democracy works best when influence is visible.

B. Audit the Pentagon

The Department of Defense manages one of the largest budgets on Earth and has repeatedly failed comprehensive audits. Every public institution handling taxpayer money should be accountable for every dollar. Annual independent audits. Public spending dashboards. Procurement transparency.

Core Principle: National security and financial accountability are not mutually exclusive.

C. Congressional Stock Trading Ban

Members of Congress write laws that affect markets. Many of them also trade the stocks those laws move. Blind trusts only. Individual stock restrictions. Real enforcement penalties — not the kind that get quietly dropped in committee.

Core Principle: Public service should not create private advantages.

D. Ban Gerrymandering

Many districts are designed to protect politicians rather than represent voters. The map is drawn before the election so the election doesn’t matter. Independent redistricting commissions. Transparent mapping. Objective standards.

Core Principle: Voters should choose representatives. Not the other way around.

E. National Transparency Portal

Americans can track a pizza delivery in real time. Tracking how the federal government spends their money is dramatically harder. Searchable federal expenditures. Agency spending dashboards. Contract transparency. Public performance metrics.

Core Principle: Taxpayers shouldn’t need a FOIA request to follow their money.

F. Congressional Term Limits

Elected office was designed to be public service, not a career. Somewhere along the way that distinction got lost. House limits. Senate limits. Post-service lobbying restrictions. Leadership rotation.

Core Principle: Fresh perspectives strengthen institutions. Permanent ones calcify them.

G. Automatic Voter Registration

The government already knows who is eligible. Automatic registration upon eligibility. Secure verification. Portable across states. If the system can find you to send a jury summons, it can find you to register you to vote.

Core Principle: Democracy should maximize participation, not engineer barriers to it.

H. Federal Sunset Reviews

Programs, agencies, and regulations often continue indefinitely whether they work or not. Scheduled performance reviews. Automatic reauthorization requirements. Outcome-based evaluations. Independent oversight.

Core Principle: Every institution should periodically prove its value.

I. Simplify the Tax Code

A tax code that almost no one understands tends to benefit the people who can afford specialists to navigate it. Simpler filing. Reduced complexity. Greater transparency. Elimination of the targeted loopholes that exist because someone paid to put them there.

Core Principle: Citizens should understand the rules they live under.

J. Revolving Door Restrictions

Government officials move between regulatory agencies and the industries they once regulated with remarkable regularity. Multi-year lobbying bans. Contractor restrictions. Conflict-of-interest safeguards.

Core Principle: Public office should serve the public first.

K. Regulatory Capture Reform

When regulators become too close to the industries they oversee, the public loses a watchdog and gains another industry lobbyist with a government badge. Independent review boards. External audits. Enhanced conflict rules.

Core Principle: The watchdog shouldn’t be sleeping in the wolf’s den.

L. Government Performance Reviews

Intentions matter. Results matter more. Public scorecards. Measurable outcomes. Performance audits. Agency benchmarking against stated goals. Government should be judged the same way it judges everything else.

Core Principle: Good intentions are not a KPI.

M. Congressional Pay Reform

Many Americans believe elected officials should experience the same economic realities as the people they represent. Pay tied to median wage growth. Performance benchmarks. Independent compensation reviews.

Core Principle: If Americans fall behind, Congress should feel it too.

N. Constitutional Data Privacy Rights

In the digital age, personal information has become one of the most valuable commodities on Earth — and most Americans have no legal ownership of their own. Personal data ownership rights. Consumer consent standards. Data portability. Strong privacy protections.

Core Principle: You are not the product. You are the citizen.

None of these require a revolution. They require an honest count of who’s actually in charge — and the willingness to change it

Results are in…

Comment below. Rank your top five from #1 through #5.

Don’t just pick your favorites. Force yourself to rank them. That’s where it gets interesting… because ranking means tradeoffs, and tradeoffs mean you’re actually thinking about governance instead of just reacting to it.

On July 4th, I’ll publish the results and announce the five that earned their place in the series. Those five become the next five episodes.

Twenty-five fixes built the foundation.

You’re writing the next chapter.

Drop your five below. Ranked #1 through #5. The poll closes July 4th.

Don't forget.. The 25 Fix Make America Grow Again Series, that most of you missed is linked below

... And… Don’t Forget.…👇

Every proposal on this ballot builds on a fix that’s already been written.

Before my publication was shared with others, the first 3 months of 2026, were spent publishing 25 Make America Grow Again episodes examining the structural problems that survive presidents, parties, and election cycles.

If you’re new here, this is the foundation:

🌳 THE ROOTS

🌲 THE TRUNK

🌿 THE BRANCHES

Twenty-five problems. Twenty-five fixes. One uncomfortable argument:

America doesn’t have a left problem. America doesn’t have a right problem.

America has a structural problem.

Read any. Read all. Then come back and tell me which five fixes should be added next.

When I launched this series, I had under 100 subscribers and a simple, uncomfortable theory: America doesn’t have a left problem or a right problem. It has a structural problem. Twenty-five problems, to be precise. The kind that don’t get fixed because fixing them would cost the people in power something they’re not willing to lose.

Eight months later, every episode is published. Every link below is live. This is the table of contents, the map, and the indictment — all in one place.

Start anywhere. Share what hits. The whole point is that none of this should be comfortable.

There is no left version of this. There is no right version. There are structures that work for most people, and structures that work for a few — and right now we have the wrong ones, locked in by the people who benefit from them.

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Refer a friend

Get 50% off a group subscription

If you are reading this in the app, you can link to each of the below series after reading the short preview below…. Otherwise you can use the hyperlinks above and link to them with no preview.

// THE ROOTS

The Foundation Problems

If these don’t get fixed, nothing else matters. Start here.

1. Government Transparency

Sunlight is the only disinfectant that actually works. Hidden systems stay broken by design.

2. Healthcare Reform

The system isn’t broken. It’s profitable. That’s the problem — and the reason nobody with power wants to fix it.

3. Tax Reform: Value Added Tax (VAT) Implementation

A phased VAT, real progressive rates, and no more loopholes with lobbying budgets behind them. Smarter money. Fairer society.

4. Income Inequality

When the gap gets wide enough, it stops being an economy and starts being a caste system.

5. Education Access

Fund schools. Erase predatory debt. Pay great teachers like they matter. Poverty is a curriculum too — and someone decided to keep it in the syllabus.

6. Climate Change Action

Emissions caps and green energy incentives aren’t idealism. They’re the only version of this story where the tree survives.

// THE TRUNK

Core Reforms

The structural muscle. Weaken any of these and the whole thing wobbles.

7. Criminal Justice Reform

Private prisons are a business model. Mass incarceration is the product. Reform isn’t soft — it’s accurate.

Criminal Justice Reform

8. Voting Access

Universal mail-in, early voting, no manufactured barriers. Democracy shouldn’t require a logistics degree.

Voting Access

9. Technology Regulation

Monopoly is illegal. Surveillance capitalism isn’t a loophole. Antitrust enforcement isn’t radical — it’s the law.

Technology Regulation

10. Mental Health Access

The mental health crisis isn’t a personal failure. It’s a policy failure with named beneficiaries. Subsidized therapy nationwide.

Mental Health Access

11. Childcare Support

You cannot build a functioning economy on the assumption that someone at home is handling it for free.

Childcare Support

12. Immigration Reform

Humane borders. Clear paths. Real enforcement. The chaos isn’t accidental — chaos is a political product too.

Immigration Reform

13. Local Media & Independent Journalism

When local news dies, corruption moves in quietly. Fund the watchdogs or feed the wolves.

Local Media & Independent Journalism

14. Addiction Reform

It’s a public health crisis with named beneficiaries who profit from keeping it untreated. That’s not rhetoric — that’s an industry.

Addiction Reform

15. Rural Development & Infrastructure

Broadband, roads, jobs, and opportunity. Not charity. Correction for decades of deliberate neglect.

Rural Development & Infrastructure

16. Police Reform

Training, oversight, and community trust. Accountability isn’t anti-cop. Impunity is anti-public.

Police Reform

17. Corporate Capture

The revolving door between government and lobbying isn’t networking. It’s purchase. Ban it.

Corporate Capture

18. Social Security & Medicare Protection

Future-proof the safety net now or watch a generation fall through it later. There is no third option.

Social Security & Medicare Protection

19. Generational Wealth Inequality

Dynasties of privilege aren’t earned across generations. They’re engineered. Fair inheritance rules reset the game.

Generational Wealth Inequality

Superficial fixes fail because they treat symptoms. This series goes after the system that keeps producing them.

// THE BRANCHES

Innovation & Growth

Lower urgency — not lower importance. These are where a healthier society invests.

20. National Service

Optional, skills-based, and unifying. Build something together for once.

National Service

21. Criminal Rehabilitation

Recidivism isn’t inevitable. It’s what happens when reentry gets zero investment and maximum judgment.

Criminal Rehabilitation

22. Tech Education & Workforce Prep

The economy is changing. The curriculum isn’t. That gap is a choice — and someone is benefiting from it.

Tech Education & Workforce Prep

23. Family Formation Support

Strong families don’t happen in a vacuum. Policy either supports them or quietly works against them.

Family Formation Support

24. Debt Relief Programs

Education debt and medical debt aren’t moral failures. They’re the predictable result of predatory systems that were legal because the right people wrote the laws.

Debt Relief Programs

25. Systemic Poverty Areas ★ Series Finale

Community-driven education, property access, jobs, and relocation support. Not charity. Infrastructure. The same kind we give to every other broken system except this one.

Systemic Povertyji

Jjjjjjnnnjjjjjjjj

Nnnnnnnnnn

Why This Exists

Governments, corporations, and comfortable assumptions are all indicted here. That’s intentional. There is no left version of this and there is no right version. There are structures that work for most people and structures that work for a few… and right now we have the wrong ones locked in by the people who benefit from them.

That’s the whole series. Twenty-five problems. Twenty-five episodes. One argument.

Which one hits hardest for you? Drop it in the comments.

Support the Work

Sponsor-free. No advertisers. No corporate underwriting. If Uncomfortable made you think instead of just nod along:

☕ Buy Me a Coffee — https://buymeacoffee.com/rxansmith

💸 PayPal — https://paypal.me/phireballsports

▶️ YouTube — https://youtube.com/@RxanSmithMedia

🐦 X — @rxannsmith

Credits: The People Who Called It Early….

Not the loyalists. Not the partisans. Not the professional outrage merchants.

The dissenters.

The people who care more about being right than belonging.

The people who follow the issue instead of the crowd.

The people willing to disappoint their tribe in pursuit of the truth.

History rarely belongs to the loudest voices.

It usually belongs to the people who noticed first.

These writers were dismissed, ratio’d, and called every name in the book for telling the truth before it was obvious. They were right. Go give them the flowers… and the subscriptions… they earned.

[DIVIDER]

- R❌ AN SMITH

Uncomfortable

JOIN UNCOMFORTABLE

https://rxansmith.substack.com

Eight Years vs. Two Hundred Fifty

Rxan Smith — Sun, 21 Jun 2026 14:16:25 GMT

MyAmerica turns 250 in a few days.

And somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that whether we’re allowed to celebrate depends on who’s sitting in the White House.

That’s insane.

Donald Trump is not America.

Joe Biden wasn’t America.

Barack Obama wasn’t America.

The president is America’s employee. A temporary caretaker. That’s it.

But every four years, millions of us act like patriotism is now owned by whichever political team happens to be winning.

If your attitude is, “I’m not celebrating America’s birthday because Trump is president,” you’ve already made the country smaller than it actually is.

America is 250 years old.

Donald Trump gets eight.

That’s the ratio.

And here’s the part people keep forgetting:

The same country that elected Trump is also the country that limits Trump.

The courts limit him.

Congress limits him.

The Constitution limits him.

States limit him.

Voters limit him.

Even when Trump acts like he wants to be king, the story isn’t just Trump. The story is that America keeps reminding him he isn’t one.

Think about it.

In 2020, he refused to concede.

Yet he still left office.

He pushed policies Congress wouldn’t support.

Many got blocked.

Many got changed.

Many never happened.

Because America is bigger than any president.

That’s the entire point of the system.

So when July 4th gets here, stop acting like you’re deciding whether to attend Trump’s party.

It’s not Trump’s party.

It’s yours.

It’s mine.

It’s ours.

A quarter of a millennium of victories, failures, progress, hypocrisy, innovation, mistakes, wars, freedoms, and second chances.

Celebrate America.

Criticize America.

Fight to improve America.

But don’t hand ownership of America to any politician.

Because the moment you do, you’ve already forgotten what America was supposed to be.

Happy Birthday. You have two Weeks to think about it.

- R❌AN SMITH

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Refer a friend

Get 50% off a group subscription

You Don’t Have to Agree With Me On Everything

In fact… I’d be worried if you did…

These five videos cover some of the biggest questions facing America today. Watch them, challenge them, argue with them, and decide for yourself.

It’s an hour well spent, and just a taste of what you have in the archive now, and in the months and years to come .

If It Can Kill You, It's Not a Market

Rxan Smith — Sat, 20 Jun 2026 19:48:06 GMT

If a price spike can kill you, it’s a necessity.
And necessities get different rules.

Let’s start with something so obvious it apparently needs to be screamed from a burning building: people can die when gas gets too expensive. People can die when insulin costs four hundred dollars. People can die when the electricity shuts off in a heat wave, when the grocery bill doubles overnight, when the deductible is higher than the rent.

These are not market failures in some abstract policy-paper sense. They are body counts. Slow, quiet, spreadsheet-invisible body counts that we have decided, as a civilization, to treat as the price of freedom.

Freedom from what, exactly? From the indignity of a stable life?

The Part Where They Call You A Socialist

Right about now, someone is preparing to call this socialist. Fine. Let’s hear the speech about the miracle of markets. I’ll wait.

Competition built miracles. Nobody serious is arguing otherwise. The issue is not markets. The issue is that we have decided, as deliberate policy, not to draw a line between what you want and what you need to not die.

We regulate streaming services and lawn darts, but we let the pricing of insulin — a molecule discovered in 1921 — float freely because that’s somehow the defensible position in the year 2026.

And the money… the trillions… didn’t go into reserves. It didn’t go into domestic supply chain hardening, or energy buffers, or healthcare infrastructure. It went into the economy like gasoline on a bonfire. Peloton bikes flew off shelves. Stocks soared. Corporations reported record profits while families ate the volatility on the basics.

We turned a national emergency into a luxury stimulus and congratulated ourselves for the GDP numbers while the bill kept compounding.

We waited for the crisis. Then we improvised. Then we called it a success and forgot about it.

We spent more per capita on healthcare than any country on earth and still have people rationing pills, terrified of getting sick, chained to jobs they hate because quitting means losing their insurance..

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it

France built a state-owned nuclear fleet that generates roughly 75% of its electricity, then structured a regulatory mechanism that caps the price at which that power reaches consumers and taxes windfall profits above set thresholds to redistribute them back to households. Singapore stockpiles food reserves like a country that has actually thought about what happens when the supply chain breaks. The Nordic countries and South Korea have figured out how to keep a cancer diagnosis from liquefying a family’s finances.

These are not communist hellscapes. These are functioning, often fiscally conservative democracies that decided to draw a line between necessities and everything else.

None of these countries are perfect. They pay costs elsewhere — higher taxes, slower growth in some sectors, demographic challenges, regulatory burdens. But they made a different calculation about what happens when the basics become unaffordable. They decided the instability of not drawing that line costs more than the tax line to draw it.

The Stress Test We Failed In Public

Then COVID happened. And COVID was not just a pandemic — it was an audit. It was a full, open-book examination of what your system actually is versus what you tell yourself it is. What it revealed about this country should haunt every person who makes decisions in Washington.

Our system was so brittle, so exposed, so structurally reliant on everything working perfectly all the time, that we literally had to pay people to survive. Not transition them. Not absorb the shock with pre-built resilience. Pay them. Immediately. In cash. To not die Resilience.

We waited for the crisis. Then we improvised. Then we called it a success and forgot about it.

The Bat Country Diagnosis

There is something genuinely deranged about this arrangement. According to 2024 data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States spent nearly a trillion dollars on defense — more than the next nine countries combined. Aircraft carriers. Hypersonic missile programs. Special operations forces on every continent. We are, by every military metric, the most formidable security apparatus in human history.

And then we turn around and leave the soft underbelly — the part of national security that’s about whether ordinary people can survive ordinary chaos — completely, philosophically, proudly exposed.

That is not a market. That is not freedom. That is a country that has decided to build the world’s greatest fortress and leave the water supply outside the walls.

This used to be a conservative argument. Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex consuming resources that could build national strength from the inside. Reagan ran on energy independence as a security imperative. The original national security hawks understood that resilience wasn’t just aircraft carriers — it was the stability of its domestic population.

Somewhere between then and now, “national security” got reduced to procurement contracts and forward bases, while the home front was handed to the quarterly earnings cycle.

A few months of real inflation. A health scare with a bad deductible. A fuel spike right when you stretched to make rent. Years of progress get erased overnight.

And we are living in an era where those shocks are not going to get rarer. Wars. Cyberattacks. Climate catastrophes. Geopolitical actors who have decided that chaos is the strategy. This is the permanent condition now. And we have engineered a population with zero insulation against it.

That is not a political opinion. That is a national security threat.

What This Actually Requires

If your country can spend $2 trillion on a war in Afghanistan and come home with little to show for it but a slightly more experienced Taliban, then we’re allowed to spend money making sure a family in Ohio doesn’t have to choose between insulin and the electric bill.

That’s not redistribution. That’s just not being stupid on purpose.

There is no canceling insulin.

There is no budget version of chemotherapy.

There is no “switching providers” when every provider raises prices together.

There is no life hack for eviction.

For years, we’ve had a furious national argument about whether a drag show at a library is a threat to the republic. Meanwhile, the actual foundation of national stability — the ability of ordinary people to absorb ordinary shocks without their lives detonating — has been dismissed as some fringe political fantasy.

The countries that didn’t dismiss it are now outperforming us in measures that actually matter: resilience, stability, trust, health, and long-term economic security.

And rage is easily redirected toward whoever is most convenient. Every election season we act surprised by the outcome, as if cause and effect are somehow unrelated. The people profiting from that chaos understand it perfectly.

The chaos isn’t a bug. It’s the product.

The Verdict

This isn’t a call for central planning.

It’s a call for a government that remembers what it’s for.

Different rules for necessities doesn’t mean government runs everything. It means necessities are judged by a different standard than luxury goods. It means resilience, redundancy, strategic reserves. Competition where possible, regulation where necessary, and public intervention when markets demonstrably fail to provide basic stability.

That’s not socialism. That’s engineering a system that doesn’t collapse the first time something goes wrong.

Not GDP worship. Not military theater. Not culture-war content designed to keep everyone screaming at each other while the foundation quietly hollows out.

The actual job: making sure the people who live here can survive long enough to participate in the experiment.

Because in an era of permanent turbulence — and let’s be honest, this is the era of permanent turbulence — treating survival as a commodity may be one of the greatest strategic mistakes this nation ever makes.

Not the loudest mistake. Not the most dramatic.

The most dangerous.

A population living in permanent economic terror

is not a free population.

It is a population primed for rage.

Wake the hell up.

🎤💧

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Join Rxan Smith’s subscriber chat

Available in the Substack app and on web

Join chat

Free on Paper: Juneteenth

Rxan Smith — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 17:23:14 GMT

🌅 Sunset Thought

Juneteenth reminds us of a truth that extends far beyond slavery:

A person can be free on paper and still trapped in reality.

That lesson applies to history, politics, economics, and life itself.

The older I get, the more convinced I become that most of society's problems live in the gap between what we say and what we do.

Between promises and outcomes.

Between ideals and reality.

History isn't valuable because it tells us who to celebrate or condemn.

History is valuable because it shows us the patterns we keep repeating.

Sleep well. Learn something. Question everything.

See you tomorrow.

🇺🇸

- R❌AN SMITH

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

You Don’t Have To Like Elon Musk. You Do Have To Listen To Him.

Rxan Smith — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 10:50:36 GMT

The reflexive cancellation of one of the most consequential builders alive is not a principled stand. It is a case study in how tribalism makes us ignore the warnings we most need to hear.

Let’s start with the thing that makes people on both sides uncomfortable: few individuals alive have done more to reshape transportation, space, communications, and emerging technology than Elon Musk. Before Tesla, “electric car” meant a glorified golf cart with a 40-mile range. After Tesla, it meant a 0-60 in under three seconds and a charging network that actually worked. If you believe climate change is an existential threat — and most progressives say they do — then this one man’s contribution to that cause dwarfs a decade of green policy papers combined.

He co-founded PayPal, which democratized financial access for small businesses who couldn’t afford traditional merchant systems. He built SpaceX, which did what NASA’s contractor ecosystem couldn’t: dramatically reduced the cost of getting to orbit. He launched Starlink, which provided internet to conflict zones, disaster areas, and rural communities the telecom duopoly had decided weren’t profitable enough to serve. He co-founded OpenAI, planting the seed of the modern AI safety conversation.

And yet, if you mention his name in the average progressive conversation right now, the response is a sneer. That sneer is the problem we need to talk about.

The Ledger

Climate / Energy

Tesla + SolarCity

Transformed the auto industry’s EV trajectory. The net effect on adoption curves is measurable in megatons of avoided CO2.

Space Access

SpaceX

Reduced launch costs by roughly 90% via reusable rockets. NASA now depends on it.

Financial Access

PayPal

Let millions of small operators participate in the digital economy before big fintech existed.

Global Connectivity

Starlink

Provided internet to underserved rural regions, Ukrainian military communications, and post-disaster zones abandoned by telecoms.

AI Safety

OpenAI (co-founder)

Helped establish the first major nonprofit AI safety research lab, explicitly because he feared unchecked corporate AI development.

Neuroscience

Neuralink

First BCI company to implant a working device in a human patient, with early applications targeting paralysis and locked-in syndrome.

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

His record is not one of perfect foresight — Musk has repeatedly overpromised on autonomous vehicles, Mars timelines, and product launches. The point isn’t that he’s always right. It’s that people with an unusual ability to see around corners are often wrong in public more than everyone else precisely because they’re willing to make predictions at all. You can be directionally correct and tactically wrong at the same time.

The Henry Ford Problem

Henry Ford revolutionized manufacturing and helped build the American middle class. He was also a virulent anti-Semite whose writings influenced Nazi Germany. Martin Luther King Jr. transformed the moral architecture of American civil rights. He was not a perfect man. Steve Jobs changed how a generation interacts with information and each other. He was, by most accounts, frequently cruel.

Human history is full of people whose contributions and flaws coexist without canceling each other out. The demand that public figures be either heroes or villains is not moral clarity — it is intellectual laziness, and it is a luxury that serious people engaged in serious problems cannot afford. The complexity does not disappear because we need it to.

He Voted Democrat. Twice.

Before discussing why the left is furious with him, let’s establish what Musk actually was politically for most of his public life. He was a registered independent who voted for Barack Obama — twice. He donated to Democratic candidates throughout the 2010s. He openly supported universal basic income, a carbon tax, high-density urban housing, and Medicare expansion. These are on the record.

What changed? By his own account: the Democratic Party changed, specifically around what he describes as ideological rigidity on speech and dissent that he found incompatible with his temperament. You can agree or disagree. But treating him as if he’s always been a right-wing villain is historical revisionism in real time. Every major billionaire in America — the Kochs, Bloomberg, Soros, Zuckerberg, Bezos — has supported both parties over time. The game is simple: when you have that much money and that many regulatory interests, you align with whoever you think won’t hurt you. Singling out Musk for playing a game everyone plays is the definition of motivated reasoning.

Movements often become so focused on ideological purity that they lose the ability to distinguish disagreement from disqualification.

The AI Warning You’re Ignoring

Here is where the tribalist filtering goes from petty to dangerous. For nearly a decade, Musk has been the loudest major voice in American public life warning that artificial intelligence poses an existential risk to human civilization — a structural one building right now, driven by corporations and governments racing each other with essentially no agreed-upon governance framework in place.

“AI is a fundamental risk to existence of human civilization. By the time we are reactive, it will be too late.” - Elon Musk, National Governors Association 2017

He co-founded OpenAI for exactly this reason — not to build the most capable AI, but to ensure that if powerful AI got built, it would be built by an organization committed to safety over profit. He has called for regulation covering Tesla’s own AI systems, arguing against his own commercial interest that all advanced AI development should face oversight.

And a large portion of the people who most need to hear it have decided not to — because they don’t like his Twitter feed. Here’s why that matters: the first victims of uncontrolled AI won’t be humanity in some science-fiction reckoning. They’ll be accountants, paralegals, customer service reps, and millions of knowledge workers who assumed automation would stop at the factory floor. This is a question for right now, and it deserves engagement on its merits, not dismissal based on who’s raising it.

The Uncomfortable Verdict
If a progressive activist said everything Musk has said about AI risk and corporate capture of emerging technology, they would be celebrated as visionary. Because Musk says it, it gets dismissed as rich-guy theater. That’s not a principled critique. That’s tribalism with a social justice veneer.

This Disease Is Not Left-Wing

The critique here has been aimed mostly at one direction — but the error belongs to everyone. Many conservatives spent years dismissing climate scientists not because the data was wrong but because they disliked the politics attached to environmentalism. The anti-vax movement cut across partisan lines in ways that exposed the same underlying mechanism: when the messenger becomes politically coded, the message stops being evaluated. The disease is not left-wing or right-wing. It is the belief that agreement determines credibility — that you only have to take seriously the people already on your side.

The people who built the durable policy wins of the last century — labor protections, civil rights law, environmental regulation — had to understand the thinking of people they opposed. They had to take seriously arguments they disagreed with. What has replaced that discipline is a social signaling system: you demonstrate your values by publicly rejecting certain figures. And every person who performs that rejection - who rolls their eyes at the AI warnings, who refuses to acknowledge that Tesla happened - is making themselves not more principled. Stupider.

The Charge Sheet

This piece is not a defense of everything Elon Musk has done. His behavior on X has frequently been reckless. His amplification of far-right figures in Europe — particularly his endorsement of the AfD in Germany — was not a principled free-speech act. It was a choice to legitimize parties with a documented history of nationalist extremism. His labor record at Tesla — fighting union organizing, settling discrimination lawsuits — is a real contradiction for someone who built his reputation as a force for human progress. The concern that his AI company Grok has drifted toward politically motivated outputs is not paranoia. It’s observable.

These are real problems. They deserve to be named and held. But you don’t get to take those failures as permission to pretend his record doesn’t exist, or that his warnings about AI don’t deserve engagement. That’s not accountability. That’s the emotional convenience of having an enemy.

The moment you decide someone is entirely wrong because of who they voted for, you have stopped thinking. You have started performing.

And Finally…

Musk is not your ally. He is also not your enemy. He is something more useful and more uncomfortable than either: a person with an unusual track record of being right about the next thing, who is currently telling you that the next thing — artificial intelligence, built without democratic oversight, in a winner-take-all race between a handful of corporations and governments — is the most consequential danger this civilization has faced since nuclear weapons.

What the cancellation has actually done is shut off a significant portion of the population from one of the most technically sophisticated voices in the conversation about where civilization is going. Canceling him doesn’t weaken him — he is worth more than the GDP of most countries. His rockets are launching. His cars are selling. His AI company is building. What the boycotts have done is ensure the people doing the canceling stop being in the room when the most consequential decisions of the next twenty years are made.

You don’t have to admire him. You don’t have to forgive his politics or his endorsements or his management style. But if you’ve decided you won’t listen to what he says because you don’t like who he voted for, you’ve made yourself exactly the kind of person the powerful are counting on you to be. History is littered with warnings people ignored because they hated who delivered them. The warning doesn’t become less true because the messenger is flawed. It only becomes more expensive to ignore.

The most dangerous thing about ignoring smart people you hate
is that the world they’re warning you about
doesn’t care about your feelings.

· Uncomfortable · uncomfortable.rxansmithmedia.com

Who Is Rxan Smith

IF THIS POST MOTIVATED YOU… check out these…

The Democrat Guide on How to Regain Respect of the Majority.

It's Not Capitalism vs. Socialism: The Biggest Lie in American Politics.

Rxan Smith — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 12:33:51 GMT

America’s economy isn’t breaking because of capitalism or socialism. It’s breaking because we spent forty years dismantling the rules that kept concentrated power in check. One president already proved what fixing it looks like. We just stopped doing it.

The debate isn’t capitalism versus socialism. It’s whether we’re willing to enforce the rules of the system we already have.

Let’s start with what nobody on either side of this argument wants to say out loud.

America is not a capitalist country. It is not a socialist country. It is a mixed economy with a capitalist mythology layered on top — and much of the political debate assumes we must either replace the system or defend it, and neither side spends much time asking how the system stopped working the way it was supposed to. The gap between the mythology and the reality has become so wide that we can no longer have a coherent conversation about how to fix anything. And the rest of the country is just trying to pay rent.

So before we talk about what socialism costs, let’s talk about what we already bought.

Rxan Smith Uncomfortable is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

WE ARE ALREADY DOING THIS

Pick any line item in the federal budget and explain to me why it doesn’t complicate the story right-wing media tells every time someone proposes expanding Medicaid.

$886B

FY2024 Defense Dept. budget — the world’s largest jobs program

$1.06T

Annual interest on national debt — borrowed money, paid to bond holders

$1.3T

Medicare + Medicaid annual spend — government-run healthcare

$1.5T

Social Security annual spend — government retirement program

The Department of Defense employs approximately 2.87 million people directly, making it the largest employer in the United States. Add contractors and the number climbs well past four million. Social Security is a mandatory government retirement fund. Medicare is a single-payer insurance program for seniors. The mortgage interest deduction is a government subsidy for homeowners. Agricultural subsidies are direct government payments to farmers. The highway system is public infrastructure. Pell Grants are government-funded higher education assistance.

America already operates a mixed economy containing markets, public infrastructure, public insurance programs, subsidies, regulations, and government services. The question was never whether government should exist inside the economy. The question was where its role should begin and end — and who gets to decide when the line moves.

The debate was never capitalism versus socialism. It was always about where to draw the line — which industries get guardrails, which ones get to operate without them, and who decides. The problem isn’t the label. The problem isn’t that we stopped drawing the line. It’s that we kept moving it in one direction.

THE SEQUENCING PROBLEM

Take any activist platform — healthcare, housing, labor rights, climate action, college affordability, criminal justice reform, wealth redistribution. These are not radical goals in the abstract. Many of them poll reasonably well in survey form. The problem is not the ideology. The problem is the sequencing — and the fundamental mismatch between activist priorities and voter priorities.

Activists prioritize by moral urgency: what injustice demands immediate action. Voters prioritize by daily pain: what problem is making my life harder this week. These lists are not the same. Climate justice and police abolition rank near the top for one group. Grocery bills, housing costs, and healthcare premiums rank near the top for the other. Running on the first list while the second list is what’s killing people has a documented electoral track record, and it is not a good one.

Franklin Roosevelt did not win four terms by leading with social transformation. He led with economic security — jobs, banking stability, wages, mortgage relief — and built the political capital from that foundation to do everything else. The New Deal was radical by the standards of its time. But it was radical in the direction of the median American’s most urgent problems. That is the difference between durable coalition-building and moral grandstanding that loses elections and accomplishes nothing.

THE COST PROBLEM

The honest version of the Medicare for All debate is not “can we afford universal healthcare.” The honest version is: why does healthcare cost this much in the first place?

America already spends approximately $4.8 to $5 trillion per year on healthcare from all sources combined — employers, individuals, state and federal governments, private insurers. That is more per capita than any country on Earth. It is not producing proportional results. We rank eighteenth globally in life expectancy. Medical bankruptcy is a uniquely American phenomenon. The system is not underfunded. It is structurally designed to extract.

$4.9T

What America already spends on healthcare annually

2–4x

More than peer nations for the same drugs from same manufacturers

$50T+

Projected 10-year total healthcare spend under current system

#18

U.S. life expectancy ranking globally, despite highest per-capita spend

The pharmaceutical industry’s ability to charge Americans two to four times what Canadians pay for the same drug made by the same manufacturer is not a law of nature. It is a policy choice — a series of deliberate decisions made by legislators and regulators over three decades about what Medicare could negotiate, what patent protections would look like, and what happened when drug companies funded the campaigns of the people writing those rules.

The hospital consolidation that turned regional healthcare into a monopoly billing system happened because the FTC declined to block merger after merger for twenty-five years. That is not a coverage architecture problem. It is a monopoly and regulatory capture problem — and it will persist under any coverage architecture until someone addresses the underlying structure. You do not insure your way out of a monopoly problem.

The Question Nobody Asks

Why does the same insulin that costs $98 in Canada cost $326 in the USA? Not because American patients are sicker. Because American patients have no negotiating power, American hospitals have consolidated into regional monopolies, and the regulatory apparatus that was supposed to prevent this spent the last forty years being staffed by the people it was supposed to regulate.

THE TEARDOWN

The title of this piece is “The Guardrails We Tore Down.” That requires an accounting of the tearing down — not as history for its own sake, but because the mechanism matters. These were not accidents. Each was a choice, made by identifiable people, for identifiable reasons, with identifiable beneficiaries. Understanding that is what separates a structural diagnosis from a complaint.

None of these decisions, taken individually, seemed revolutionary. No politician campaigned on creating a more monopolized economy. No voter was told they were voting to weaken competition. The guardrails disappeared the same way most institutions decay: gradually, technically, and largely out of public view until the consequences became impossible to ignore.

Not every change on this list was inherently wrong, and reasonable people can debate many of them. What matters is the cumulative effect.

1980s

Antitrust philosophy shifts. The Reagan administration adopts the Chicago School framework, which holds that market concentration is only harmful if it raises consumer prices in the short term. Corporate mergers that would have been blocked under prior standards sail through. The DOJ and FTC begin the decade-long project of redefining “competitive harm” in ways that exclude most of what had previously been considered harmful.

Regulatory agencies defunded and restaffed. The FTC loses roughly 40% of its staff between 1980 and 1984. The NLRB becomes a venue for management-side enforcement. The SEC’s budget is held flat while the financial sector grows. The pattern is consistent: the agencies are not abolished. They are hollowed out and pointed in the wrong direction.

Union density begins its long decline. The signal moment is PATCO — Reagan fires 11,000 air traffic controllers for striking. The message to every employer negotiating with organized labor is received. Union membership, which had been approximately 35% of the workforce in the mid-1950s and still sat near 20% in 1980, begins a decline that will take it below 10% by 2023.

1990s

Glass-Steagall repealed. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 removes the Depression-era firewall between commercial banking and investment banking. Banks that take federally insured deposits can now also make leveraged bets. The financial sector grows from roughly 4% of GDP in 1980 to over 8% by 2006. When those bets go wrong, the insured deposits are backstopped by the public. The profits, during the good years, are private.

Telecommunications consolidation accelerates. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, sold as pro-competition legislation, produces the opposite. Within a decade, the number of major media companies falls from roughly fifty to six. Local news begins its structural collapse. The information infrastructure that a functioning democracy depends on is consolidated into a small number of nationally owned properties optimized for engagement over accuracy.

Healthcare mergers begin in earnest. Hospitals start merging regionally. The FTC, operating under the new permissive merger framework, largely waves them through. By the mid-2000s, most metropolitan areas will have one or two dominant hospital systems with effectively no competition — and pricing power to match.

2000s

Financial leverage reaches systemic levels. Investment banks achieve leverage ratios of 30:1 or higher in the mid-2000s. The SEC, in a 2004 rule change, exempts the five largest investment banks from leverage limits that had applied to the rest of the industry. The rule is adopted after a single 55-minute meeting. None of the commissioners vote against it. When the leverage unwinds in 2008, the public absorbs the losses through TARP and the Federal Reserve’s emergency programs. The executives who built the leverage keep most of their compensation.

Private equity begins its roll-up era. Leveraged buyout activity, using historically low interest rates and minimal regulatory scrutiny, accelerates. Private equity acquires hospital systems, nursing homes, dental practices, veterinary chains, newspapers, apartment buildings, and retail chains — stripping assets, loading debt, and extracting fees regardless of whether the underlying business survives. The NLRB and FTC, still operating with reduced staffing and permissive frameworks, do not meaningfully intervene.

2010

Citizens United v. FEC. The Supreme Court rules that corporations have First Amendment rights to spend unlimited money in elections. The decision does not create political money — it eliminates the last meaningful constraint on it. Dark money organizations, SuperPACs, and industry-funded advocacy groups scale immediately. The campaign finance infrastructure that allows regulated industries to fund the campaigns of their regulators is now constitutionally protected. The revolving door between regulatory agencies and the industries they oversee becomes a superhighway.

2010s

Tech concentration goes unaddressed. Google acquires DoubleClick in 2007 and dominates online advertising. Facebook acquires Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Amazon builds a cloud infrastructure business that underlies a substantial fraction of the internet while also competing directly with the businesses that depend on its retail platform. The FTC and DOJ review most of these acquisitions and approve them. The argument, consistent with the Chicago School framework, is that consumer prices are not rising — therefore no competitive harm exists. That framework has no concept of data monopoly, platform dependency, or the elimination of potential competitors before they can threaten incumbents.

Pharmaceutical pricing reaches its current structure. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 explicitly prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices — a provision inserted at the insistence of the pharmaceutical lobby and passed in a 220–215 House vote at 3 a.m. For twenty years, the largest healthcare purchaser in the United States is legally barred from doing what every other developed country’s healthcare system does as a matter of course. The resulting pricing structure — in which Americans effectively subsidize below-market drug prices for the rest of the world — is protected by the same campaign finance infrastructure that Citizens United subsequently entrenched.

2020s

Concentration reaches Gilded Age levels. By most measures of corporate concentration — revenue share of top four firms by sector, markup over marginal cost, profit share of GDP — the American economy in 2025 resembles the economy Teddy Roosevelt inherited more than it resembles the economy of 1970. In sector after sector, a small number of dominant players have pricing power, regulatory influence, and political cover that their predecessors in the Standard Oil era would have recognized immediately.

The CFPB begins a new cycle of gutting. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created after 2008 specifically to prevent the regulatory capture that enabled the financial crisis, has now been targeted for reduction twice in fifteen years — first in the Trump I era, and again in the Trump II era. The pattern remains consistent: institutions built to constrain concentrated economic power are themselves targeted by the concentrated economic power they were built to constrain.

That is the teardown. Not a conspiracy — a series of decisions made by people who understood exactly what they were doing, funded by people who understood exactly why. The guardrails were not swept away in a moment of ideological revolution. They were removed piece by piece, agency by agency, rule by rule, over forty years, by a political class that was paid to remove them and told the public it was doing something else.

T

HE TEDDY OPTION

Here is the thing nobody on the activist left and nobody on the libertarian right wants to acknowledge simultaneously: most of what is broken about the American economy is not a product of too much capitalism or too little socialism. It is a product of regulatory capture, monopoly consolidation, and the systematic removal of guardrails that American governance installed deliberately over the better part of a century — and then quietly dismantled starting in the 1980s.

Historical Precedent

“The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly what should be said on the vital issues of the day.”

Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

Theodore Roosevelt did not come into office arguing for socialism. He came into office arguing that capitalism needed to be saved from itself. He busted forty-four monopolies. He created the FDA, the Forest Service, and the national park system. He pushed through the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act. He did not do any of this by expanding the size of government indefinitely. He did it by demanding that the participants in the economy play by rules that already existed or should have existed.

What he understood — and what both parties have since forgotten for different reasons — is that a market without enforceable rules is not capitalism. It is organized extraction. And the people doing the extracting will always have more resources to capture the regulatory process than the people being extracted from have to fight back. That is not a left-wing critique. It is a structural observation about power.

The model he demonstrated was specific. You don’t wait for a new ideology. You enforce the laws already on the books. The Sherman Antitrust Act had existed since 1890 when Roosevelt took office in 1901. It had been used six times in eleven years, largely to break up labor unions. Roosevelt turned it on the corporations it was written to constrain. He did not invent new authority. He used existing authority the way it was designed to be used, against people who had spent a decade assuming it wouldn’t be.

The Federal Trade Commission exists. The Department of Justice Antitrust Division exists. The National Labor Relations Board exists. The Securities and Exchange Commission exists. The Food and Drug Administration exists. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exists and has already been gutted once and partially rebuilt. These are not new institutions requiring new appropriations. They are existing institutions that have been systematically underfunded, understaffed, and in several cases deliberately sabotaged by appointing people to run them who do not believe in the mission they were hired to execute.

What Guardrails Actually Look Like

None of those fixes require the kind of multi-trillion-dollar expenditure that dominates the current policy debate. Most of them require the government to do what it is already theoretically authorized to do — enforce existing law, break up illegal monopolies, fund regulatory agencies at the level they need to function, and require transparency. The machinery for most of this already exists. What it costs to run these agencies properly is an order of magnitude less than what it costs to insure the population against the consequences of not running them.

What doesn’t exist is the political will to use the machinery. Because the people who benefit from the current arrangement fund the campaigns of the people who would have to enforce the rules. That is not a capitalism problem. That is a corruption problem with a capitalism costume on.

THE NEW TRUSTS

If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he wouldn’t be talking about socialism. He wouldn’t be talking about abolishing capitalism. He’d be asking why a handful of companies control online advertising, cloud computing, prescription drug distribution, hospital networks, meat processing, banking assets, and telecommunications infrastructure. Then he’d ask why the agencies created to police those industries stopped doing their jobs.

The trusts Roosevelt busted were railroad companies and oil companies — entities that controlled the physical infrastructure of the economy so completely that no competitor could enter, no supplier could negotiate, and no customer could escape. The digital equivalent is not a metaphor. Google controls approximately 90% of the search advertising market. Amazon controls roughly 40% of American e-commerce and a commanding share of cloud infrastructure — while simultaneously competing directly against the businesses that depend on that infrastructure to reach customers. Meta acquired its two largest potential competitors, Instagram and WhatsApp, at the moment they became threatening, with explicit internal communications describing the acquisitions as a strategy to neutralize competitive threats. Apple controls both the hardware and the software distribution platform for one of the two dominant smartphone operating systems, taking a 30% cut of every transaction that passes through it.

These are not new companies that need room to grow. They are mature monopolies with market capitalizations larger than most countries’ GDP, operating with the same structural advantages that Standard Oil had in 1900: control of a critical infrastructure layer, the ability to squeeze competitors who depend on access to that layer, and sufficient political spending to ensure the agencies that might intervene remain understaffed, under-resourced, and philosophically hesitant

The Chicago School framework that has guided antitrust enforcement for forty years has no language for this. If a platform gives you a service for free while harvesting your behavioral data to sell to advertisers, consumer prices have not risen — therefore, by the framework’s logic, no harm has occurred. The fact that this arrangement has produced a surveillance capitalism infrastructure that shapes political information, distorts public discourse, and eliminates the possibility of competition in any market the platform chooses to enter is simply outside the analytical vocabulary the framework provides.

Roosevelt did not need a new theory of economics. He needed people willing to use the tools already available. We are in the same position. The Sherman Act applies to digital gatekeepers the same way it applied to railroad trusts. The question is whether anyone in government is willing to say so out loud and act accordingly.

The socialists are right that the game has become rigged. Conservatives are right that wealth creation matters. Both are wrong about the cure.

WHAT THIS ACTUALLY IS

Let’s be direct about the thing both sides are dancing around.

The left correctly identifies many of the symptoms. Wages have been stagnant relative to productivity for four decades. Healthcare costs are destroying household finances. Housing is unaffordable in every major metro. The pharmaceutical industry charges Americans two to four times what peer nations pay for identical drugs. Corporate consolidation has reduced competition across sector after sector. The gap between the top decile and everyone else has widened at a rate not seen since the Gilded Age. These are not debatable points. They are documented facts.

The right correctly identifies that wealth creation matters, that markets generate prosperity that central planning historically has not, and that government programs tend to calcify into bureaucracies that serve themselves. Those are also not debatable points. They are documented facts.

Both sides are wrong about the cure. Because neither set of symptoms is caused by too much capitalism or too little socialism. They are caused by the removal of the mechanisms that were always supposed to keep capitalism honest.

America became prosperous not because it chose capitalism over regulation, but because it paired capitalism with rules that prevented economic power from becoming political power. The crisis we face today isn’t a failure of markets. It’s a failure to police them.

The right’s diagnosis is largely incorrect. The answer to failed regulatory enforcement is not less regulation. The answer to a captured FDA is not no FDA. The answer to a postal service starved of funding is not to prove government can’t run anything by starving it further. The idea that the market would solve drug pricing if we just got government out of the way is contradicted by the fact that the drug pricing problem is worst in the one developed country that most closely follows that prescription.

The real argument is not between capitalism and socialism. It is between a system with functioning guardrails and a system without them. Teddy Roosevelt understood this in 1901. We are still arguing about it in 2025 because a significant number of very wealthy people have found it useful for us to keep arguing about it, and they have funded the infrastructure — political, media, and academic — to make sure we do.

The Uncomfortable Summary

We have been debating the wrong question for forty years. The question is not how much socialism to add. The question is whether we are willing to enforce the rules of the system we already have. Most of what is broken can be addressed at a fraction of the cost of the multi-trillion-dollar proposals that currently dominate the debate. It requires only that the people we elect stop taking money from the industries they are supposed to regulate. That turns out to be the hardest thing in American politics. Considerably harder than arguing about socialism.

THE BOTTOM LINE

America is not suffering from too little socialism. It is suffering from too much regulatory capture, too much monopoly consolidation, too much campaign finance corruption, and too little honest governance of the mixed economy it already operates.

Teddy Roosevelt busted the trusts and proved that concentrated economic power can be confronted without abandoning capitalism. He did not solve it permanently — he slowed it, rebalanced it, bought the country a generation of breathing room before the forces of consolidation regrouped. The monopolies never disappear. They adapt. Which is why we are back here a century later, having the same argument with a different cast, about different industries, using different vocabulary to describe the same structural problem.

The blueprint is still on the shelf. Enforce the rules. Break up illegal concentrations of market power. Fund the institutions built to do that work. Insist that economic strength does not automatically purchase political immunity.

It requires no new ideology, no new bureaucracy, and no new debt. It requires only that we elect people willing to actually do the job — and stop pretending that the word socialism is the real problem when the word corruption is sitting right there, plain as day, in every campaign finance disclosure and every industry-written regulatory comment and every revolving door appointment.

That’s the uncomfortable part.

🎤 💧 -

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Substack Support X / Twitter

Sources & Further Reading

Data, historical records, and policy analysis cited or referenced in this article. Primary government sources are listed first within each category.

Government Spending & Federal Programs

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Budget and Economic Outlook
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — Historical Tables
U.S. Department of Defense — FY2024 Budget Materials
Social Security Administration — Annual Trustees Reports
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — National Health Expenditure Data

Healthcare Costs & Pricing

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — National Health Expenditure Accounts
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) — U.S. Health System Tracker
Commonwealth Fund — International Health System Comparisons
RAND Corporation — Hospital Price Transparency Studies
Congressional Research Service (CRS) — Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Reports
Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Antitrust & Market Concentration

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — Historical Merger Enforcement Reports
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
Lina Khan, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” (Yale Law Journal, 2017)
Thomas Philippon, The Great Reversal (2019)
Barry Lynn, Cornered (2010)
Tim Wu, The Curse of Bigness (2018)

Campaign Finance & Political Influence

Big Tech & Platform Dominance

Theodore Roosevelt & Progressive Era Reform

Theodore Roosevelt Center Digital Library
National Park Service — Theodore Roosevelt and Trust-Busting
Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex
Doris Kearns Goodwin, The Bully Pulpit
U.S. Department of Justice — Historical Antitrust Cases

Additional Data Sources

UNCOMFORTABLE

The Robots Aren’t Stealing Your Job. They’re Repossessing It.

Rxan Smith — Tue, 16 Jun 2026 13:22:19 GMT

Picture this: somewhere in a Senate office building, at an hour when nothing good has ever happened, a congressman who still prints out his emails is asking the CEO of an AI company whether the robots are going to be “friendly.”

The CEO — a man who has personally helped erase entire job categories from the economy before his second coffee — smiles and says something about “responsible innovation.” Everyone nods. C-SPAN keeps rolling.

Nobody asks the only question that matters. So I will.

If artificial intelligence is about to generate trillions of dollars in new wealth while making tens of millions of people economically optional — who gets the check?

Not “will AI take your job.” That question retired years ago and is now collecting a pension it didn’t earn.

The real question — the one that should be leading every cable segment and every stump speech — is this: when the productivity miracle lands, who’s at the table, and who’s just bussing it?

01 / THE NUMBERS NOBODY WANTS TO DISCUSS

The Math Doesn’t Lie. It Just Doesn’t Care About You.

Goldman Sachs — an institution that has never once been wrong about money and never once been right about people — estimates that roughly 300 million full-time-equivalent jobs worldwide are exposed to AI automation. About a quarter of U.S. work tasks could eventually be handled by a machine that doesn’t ask for dental.

Now, before the spreadsheet economists start sharpening their pencils — yes, I know. “Exposed to automation” is not the same as “eliminated.” ATMs didn’t kill bank tellers. Excel didn’t kill accountants. The internet took its sweet time killing travel agents, and even then it mostly just relocated them to Yelp reviews.

Every prior wave of automation destroyed some jobs and, eventually, created others nobody saw coming. Nobody in 1850 was budgeting for “social media manager.”

That’s the honest version of the optimist’s case, and it deserves to be said before I take it apart: lower costs create new demand, new demand creates new industries, new industries create new jobs. It’s happened before. It might happen again.

Here’s the catch. Every previous wave of automation replaced a category of labor — manual, then clerical, then routine. This is the first wave aimed at the thing the last forty years of “safe career advice” was built on: judgment. Coding, legal research, diagnosis, writing, design, analysis, customer service — these aren’t niche fields. They’re the fields.

Exposure doesn’t guarantee elimination. The real question is whether replacement jobs arrive fast enough, in enough volume, for the people actually displaced — and whether the people doing the displacing have any incentive to make sure that happens on anyone’s timeline but their own.

And on the macro level, Goldman projects AI could add roughly $7 trillion to global GDP — about a 7% bump — over the next decade.

For a hundred years, politicians have treated GDP like the country’s report card. Number goes up, we’re winning. But GDP has never once asked the follow-up question: up for whom?

GDP is the total on the receipt. It doesn’t tell you whose name is on the card.

02 / FOLLOW THE MONEY

You Already Know Where It’s Going

The biggest financial winners of the AI era are unlikely to be electricians, teachers, line cooks, or anyone who has ever had to refresh their bank app before payday. The winners are going to be — brace yourself for the plot twist — the companies that already own everything.

NVIDIA. Microsoft. Alphabet. Amazon. OpenAI. And yes, Anthropic — the company whose AI is currently helping me write this sentence, because I’d rather get sued for accuracy than praised for cowardice.

Goldman estimates AI infrastructure spending alone could top $1.1 trillion by 2027. That’s not investment in you. That’s investment in the thing that replaces you — built by the same handful of companies, financed by the same pension funds that quietly hold stock in the firms automating away the jobs those pensions were supposed to protect.

Nobody needs a smoky back room for this. The incentives just all point the same direction, like iron filings near a magnet — and the magnet is shaped like a stock buyback.

AI is being sold to the public as a productivity revolution for humanity. Financially, it’s shaping up to be one of the largest wealth-concentration events in modern history — and possibly, when the dust settles, simply the largest, no historical comparison required.

The shareholder always wins, because the shareholder owns the part of the company that doesn’t need health insuranc

e02.5 / FOR THE RECORD

This Isn’t an Anti-AI Argument

None of this requires AI to fail.

AI may end up curing diseases, accelerating scientific discovery, slashing costs, and creating abundance on a scale previous generations could barely imagine. That part isn’t in dispute.

The question isn’t whether AI will generate wealth. It will. The question is whether the public participates in creating it, owns part of it, or merely rents access to it — same as everything else they were sold this century.

This isn’t an argument against the technology. It’s an argument against the ownership structure sitting underneath it. Those are very different things, and only one of them gets you called a Luddite on cable news.

03 / WHO FED THE MACHINE

The Heist Nobody’s Calling a Heist

Here’s a question that gets skipped past so fast in AI coverage it’s basically become furniture: what did these models actually learn from?

Not just chips and electricity. Every major AI model was trained on the accumulated output of human civilization — books, articles, forum posts, open-source code, research papers, photographs, video, decades of labor that millions of people did for free, or for a paycheck from an employer who never imagined it would end up as training data for something else entirely.

The raw material of the AI economy isn’t silicon. It’s us.

Specifically, it’s nearly everything humanity has published, uploaded, reviewed, annotated, or argued about online since roughly 1995.

So here’s the uncomfortable question underneath the uncomfortable question: if AI’s value comes from the collective intellectual output of billions of people, why does ownership of that value belong exclusively to the handful of corporations that happened to have the compute to scrape it first?

This is not a redistribution argument. Redistribution says “you have money, give some to people who don’t.” This is an ownership argument. It says: you built this thing out of our stuff — what’s our stake in it?

It’s the difference between asking your landlord for a rent reduction and asking why he gets to own the building you built. And once you frame it that way, the conversation stops being about charity and starts being about a receipt nobody’s been handed yet.

04 / BOTH PARTIES, SAME ROOM

Republicans Say the Market Will Fix It. Democrats Say They’ll Retrain You. Both Had Their Moment — and Blew It.

The Republican answer, in its most generous form, is the steelmanned version from earlier: deregulate, let capital and labor reallocate, and new industries will emerge to absorb the displaced — the way they always have.

Here’s what that looked like in practice. In July 2025, the Trump administration released its “AI Action Plan,” branded as a worker-first AI agenda. Strip away the branding and here’s what’s actually in it:

Tax-free reimbursement for AI training
Retraining programs routed through the Department of Labor
A new “AI Workforce Research Hub” whose primary job is to study how many people are getting displaced and how fast

Notice what’s missing. No income support for the gap between “your job got automated” and “your retraining finished.” No portable benefits. No mechanism — none — for workers to have any say in how AI gets deployed in their own workplace, what gets automated first, or how the resulting savings get shared.

The plan treats AI’s economic transformation like a weather event: something to prepare for, not something workers get a vote on. It’s not anti-worker. It’s just indifferent to worker power — which in practice amounts to roughly the same thing.

The Democratic answer — “we’ll retrain everybody” — sounds compassionate until you ask: retrain them for what?

To be fair, that question has a real answer this time. Skilled trades, healthcare, energy infrastructure, robotics maintenance, and AI oversight itself are all genuinely growing fields, and pretending otherwise would be its own kind of dishonesty. Retraining isn’t useless. It’s insufficient — a parachute handed out after some people have already jumped and others haven’t been told the plane is descending.

And when Democrats had a real chance to do more than hand out parachutes — to actually decide who gets a seat at the table — they spent it in a room with the people doing the displacing.

In September 2023, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer convened the first of nine “AI Insight Forums”: closed-door meetings on Capitol Hill where roughly two-thirds of the Senate sat down with Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and other tech executives to discuss how AI should be regulated.

The press wasn’t allowed in. The public wasn’t allowed in. Senators couldn’t even ask questions directly — they had to submit them in writing, like kids passing notes to a substitute teacher.

Even Senator Elizabeth Warren, no friend of Big Tech, called it “just plain wrong” for tech billionaires to lobby Congress behind closed doors with zero accountability. When the resulting roadmap landed eight months later, advocacy groups across the spectrum criticized it as a document that prioritized industry competitiveness over, well, anyone who isn’t industry.

For a Second Time, Trump Muses About Americans Sharing in A.I. Wealth

The party that says “we’ll retrain you” spent its biggest AI policy moment of the decade in a private room with the people doing the automating — and didn’t bring a single worker, teacher, or truck driver through the door.

WSJ: Inside the Room Where America’s Brightest Game Out How to Avoid an AI Apocalypse

05 / THE MENU OF FIXES

Choose Your Own Dystopia

Universal Basic Income. Tax AI productivity, mail everyone a check. Prevents mass poverty, keeps consumer spending alive, fits on a bumper sticker. Doesn’t restore meaning or purpose, and depending on design, risks becoming a permanent bipartisan bribe.

Is UBI freedom, or is it hush money — a check that says “here’s some cash, now stop asking who owns the robots”?

AI Ownership Dividends. The more interesting cousin of UBI. Every citizen owns a literal slice of the AI economy — Alaska’s oil dividend, but for algorithms. Not a handout. A dividend, because you own part of the machine. This is the rare idea a Wall Street Republican and a Bernie-aligned Democrat could both vote for without either needing therapy afterward.

Massive Public Works. Infrastructure, energy, housing, environmental restoration — government as employer of last resort. Builds real things. Comes with the standard government combo meal: bureaucracy, waste, and “the bridge will be done in six years, we promise.”

The Reduced Work Week. The option everyone forgot existed. If AI doubles productivity, why are we still working forty hours? Every previous productivity leap — assembly lines, computers, the internet — was supposed to buy workers more leisure. Instead it bought them more email. That’s the entire prize for a century of innovation: a Slack notification at 9:47 p.m. during your kid’s recital.

Human-Centered Capitalism. Measure mental health, family formation, trust, life expectancy, and community engagement instead of just GDP. Because if AI makes a small number of people richer than entire countries while everyone else gets lonelier and more anxious, the spreadsheet says we’re winning and reality says otherwise — and reality has a pretty good track record of eventually being right.

06 / THE RADICAL MENU

For When You’re Done Being Polite

A National AI Sovereign Wealth Fund. Norway built a trillion-dollar public fund out of oil. Imagine the same model applied to AI: every major AI company contributes a cut of profits into a fund that pays dividends to citizens. Norway did it with fossil fuels. We could do it with math.

A Robot Tax. Even Bill Gates has floated taxing automation that displaces workers, so a robot doing a job generates roughly the same public revenue a human worker did. Critics say it could slow innovation. Maybe. But “ignore the problem and hope it resolves itself” has never won a war, a marriage, or an empire.

Corporate AI Licenses. If a company’s AI deployment displaces 10,000 workers, require it to fund transition programs for those workers — a social-impact fee for industrial-scale obsolescence. Severance, but for an entire workforce, paid by the thing that replaced them.

Guardian: Bernie Sanders' AI sovereign wealth fund plan is good. But we think this is better

The Part Where I Turn This Back on You

Here’s the uncomfortable truth underneath all of it: AI isn’t creating a new problem. It’s exposing one that was already there, quietly, the whole time.

For decades, the deal in this country was simple: work hard, and you’ll earn your share.

AI doesn’t break that deal. It just stops pretending the deal was ever about you — it was always about labor, and labor was always just a temporary, inconvenient way to extract value before something cheaper came along.

You weren’t the point. You were the workaround.

And if a handful of companies end up owning the intelligence, the chips, the data centers, and the training data scraped from all of us — what we’re building isn’t a technological revolution.

It’s feudalism with a server farm. Serfs don’t get dividends. They get terms of service.

The Industrial Revolution created workers. The AI Revolution may create owners and non-owners. If that’s where we’re headed, the defining political question of the 21st century won’t be how intelligent the machines become.

It’ll be whether the people who built the future get a stake in it.

🎤💧 - R❌AN SMITH

ABOUT ME & MY PUBLICATION

Thanks for reading Rxan Smith Uncomfortable! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Get 50% off a group subscription

Some of My Favorite Posts:

The Left vs Right Axes Has Always Been Wrong

Rxan Smith — Mon, 15 Jun 2026 12:02:27 GMT

The real divide in America isn’t left versus right. It’s power versus people.

Every election cycle we’re told the same thing.

This election is the most important election of our lifetime.
Democracy is on the ballot.
The other side is an existential threat.
The stakes have never been higher.

And then the election ends.
And somehow… the pharmaceutical companies are still winning.
The defense contractors are still winning.
The biggest lobbyists are still winning.
The wealthiest donors are still winning.

And ordinary Americans are still wondering why housing costs too much, healthcare costs too much, education costs too much, and trust in every institution keeps collapsing.

So tonight I want to ask a question.
What if we’ve been looking at politics through the wrong lens?

Rxan Smith Uncomfortable is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

What if the most important divide in America isn’t Republican versus Democrat?
What if it isn’t conservative versus liberal?
What if it isn’t left versus right?

What if the real divide is something much older, much simpler, and much more important?

POWER
VS
PEOPLE

THE REAL DIVIDE IN AMERICA

Now before anyone starts typing angry comments, let’s get something out of the way.
This is not a “both parties are exactly the same” argument.
They aren’t.

There are real differences on abortion, guns, regulation, culture, courts, taxation, and a hundred other issues.
Those differences matter. They affect real lives.

But that’s not what tonight is about.
Tonight is about asking a different question.
A bigger question.
A question that cuts underneath the labels.

Who actually wins? Who actually benefits? Who actually has power?

Because once you start asking those questions, modern politics begins to look very different.

The Spectrum They Sold You

Let’s start with something most people never think about.
When you say you’re on the left or the right, what exactly does that mean?

Do you believe workers should have more power in the workplace? Traditionally left.
Do you believe government should stay out of your private life, your bedroom, your medical decisions? Traditionally right.
Do you believe local communities should have more say over federal mandates? Traditionally right.
Do you believe corporate monopolies are destroying small businesses and rural economies? Traditionally left.

Except here’s the problem.
Most Americans believe some combination of all those things.
Most Americans are not ideological robots.
Most Americans are mixtures. They always have been.

The average citizen doesn’t fit neatly into a partisan box.
The average citizen has a scrambled basket of views.
And that’s where the traditional political map starts breaking down.

◀ FAR LEFT

CENTER

FAR RIGHT ▶

The Axis That Actually Matters

◀ THE PEOPLE POWER ▶

Because the idea that America consists of two perfectly coherent tribes locked in eternal combat isn’t reality.
It’s marketing. It’s branding. It’s a product.
And somebody is making a lot of money selling it.

Study after study shows that somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of Americans hold views that don’t map cleanly onto either party platform.
They want universal healthcare and secure borders.
Police reform and safe streets.
Skeptical of Wall Street and skeptical of government overreach.
They want the government to leave their guns alone and to do something about their insulin costs.

These aren’t contradictions. These are just normal people.

Yet we’re constantly told we must choose one team or the other.
Why?
Who benefits from that?

Because when I look around, I notice something.
The people at the bottom are fighting each other.
The people at the top are cashing checks.

And that brings us to something fascinating.
The original left-right political spectrum wasn’t even created around today’s issues.
It came from the French Revolution.
People literally sat on opposite sides of a room in the National Assembly.

Those on the left supported the revolution, the redistribution of aristocratic power, the rights of the commons.
Those on the right supported the monarchy, the Church, the existing order.

The question wasn’t identity.
The question wasn’t culture.
The question wasn’t social media outrage.

The question was simple: Who holds power? Who should hold power? And what are they allowed to do with it?

That’s it. That’s the original argument.

Fast forward a couple hundred years and we’ve buried that question under mountains of tribalism, outrage, and distraction.
But the question never disappeared.
We just stopped asking it.

And maybe that’s exactly what powerful people wanted.
Because once you start following power instead of labels, some uncomfortable patterns emerge.

Consider this:
Less than one percent of Americans make large political donations.
Yet research has repeatedly found that when the preferences of average voters conflict with the preferences of economic elites, elite preferences are more likely to become policy.

The people have votes.
The powerful have access.
The people have opinions.
The powerful have influence.
The people have election years.
The powerful have lobbyists every day of every year.

And lobbying isn’t a small side business.
It’s a multibillion-dollar industry.

Pharmaceutical companies. Financial institutions. Defense contractors. Technology giants. Energy companies. Healthcare systems. Insurance companies. Private equity firms.
All spending enormous amounts of money influencing the rules under which they operate.

Again, ask the question.
Who benefits?

Concrete Examples

Drug Pricing & Insulin

People’s interest: Lower out-of-pocket costs. Same drug, same factory, same price as in peer nations. Chronic illness should not be a profit center.

Power’s interest: Maximized margins via patent evergreening, direct-to-consumer advertising, and blocking importation or price negotiation. Recurring revenue from lifelong patients.

Status quo alignment: Power
Both parties have taken pharma money for decades while costs remain outliers globally.

Immigration Enforcement

People’s interest: Secure borders that actually work plus legal pathways that don’t flood low-skill labor markets and suppress wages for citizens without college degrees.

Power’s interest: Reliable supply of cheap, compliant labor for agriculture, meatpacking, construction, and hospitality. Enforcement theater that never quite solves the supply.

Status quo alignment: Power
Decades of bipartisan inaction while key industries quietly depend on the current flow.

Healthcare System Design

People’s interest: Access decoupled from employment. Predictable costs. No medical bankruptcy for insured people. Prevention over endless billing cycles.

Power’s interest: Employer-based system that ties workers to jobs. Multiple layers of administration and profit-taking. Complexity that defeats reform.

Status quo alignment: Power
The U.S. pays far more per capita than peers while delivering worse population outcomes on many metrics.

Corporate Taxes & Bailouts

People’s interest: Profitable corporations pay a meaningful share. Losses are not socialized while gains stay private. No permanent “too big to fail” safety net.

Power’s interest: Lower effective rates through lobbying and complexity. Access to emergency public capital when markets turn. Tax code written by the people it taxes least.

Status quo alignment: Power
Effective corporate rates remain far below statutory. Bailout infrastructure is now permanent.

In the 1970s, CEOs made roughly twenty-five times what typical workers made.
Today that number is more than two hundred and eighty times.

The top one percent owns a dramatically larger share of wealth than it did a generation ago.
Federal lobbying spending has exploded.

Concentrated wealth has increased. Concentrated influence has increased. Concentrated access has increased.

And yet somehow we’re still arguing like the biggest story in America is which party won the last election.

Maybe we’re debating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
Maybe we’re arguing about teams while someone else owns the stadium.

For years I bought the frame like everyone else.
I argued left versus right.
I picked my team and defended it.

Then I started noticing something that didn’t fit the script.
Every time ordinary people got angry enough to fight each other over the latest outrage...
somebody else quietly got richer.

The pharmaceutical companies. The defense contractors. The private equity firms. The people writing the rules.

And I realized the fight itself might be the product.

Now here’s where this gets uncomfortable.
I’m not asking you to switch teams.
I’m asking you to take off the jersey.

Rxan Smith Uncomfortable is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Partisan Test

One of the easiest ways to know whether you’ve become a partisan instead of a citizen is simple:

Can you criticize your own side?
Not the other side.
Your side.

Because power doesn’t care what jersey you’re wearing.
Power corrupts Republicans.
Power corrupts Democrats.
Power corrupts corporations.
Power corrupts bureaucracies.
Power corrupts movements.

The moment accountability becomes something that only applies to your opponents, you’ve stopped defending principles and started defending a tribe.

Ask yourself some simple questions.
Should people who work full-time be able to afford a decent life?
Should corporations write the regulations that govern themselves?
Should elected officials be financially dependent on the industries they’re supposed to oversee?
Should healthcare bankrupt families?
Should government spy on citizens without meaningful oversight?

Don’t ask what Republicans think.
Don’t ask what Democrats think.
Ask what you think.

Because I’d wager that on many of those questions, you have more in common with your supposed political enemies than you realize.

And that’s dangerous.
Not dangerous for you.
Dangerous for the people who profit from keeping you divided.

What Nobody Talks About

Here’s what nobody talks about.
If the Republican Party disappeared tomorrow...
The pharmaceutical lobby would still exist.
If the Democratic Party disappeared tomorrow...
The pharmaceutical lobby would still exist.
If Fox News disappeared tomorrow...
The lobbying industry would still exist.
If MSNBC disappeared tomorrow...
The lobbying industry would still exist.
If every culture war argument vanished overnight...
The concentration of wealth would still exist.
The revolving door would still exist.
Regulatory capture would still exist.
The incentives would still exist.

Which means maybe the problem isn’t the argument.
Maybe the problem is the thing the argument distracts us from.

Power loves certainty.
People need results.

That’s why so much of modern politics has become performance.
The goal isn’t solving problems.
The goal is proving loyalty.
The goal is demonstrating that you’re on the correct team.

But ordinary Americans don’t wake up asking whether their neighbors are sufficiently enlightened.
They want affordable housing.
Affordable healthcare.
Safe communities.
Good jobs.
Functional institutions.

If your movement can’t deliver those things, eventually voters stop listening no matter how morally convinced you are that you’re right.
Reality always gets the final vote.

Rxan’s Final RX

Stop saying you’re “not political.”

You live in a society.

Your rent.

Your insulin.

Your kid’s school lunch.

The water coming out of your tap.

Every one of those exists inside a system shaped by political decisions made by people you’ve probably never met.

Mostly without your input.

Being “not political” isn’t a personality trait.

It’s an abdication.

And the people who benefit most from your absence are counting on you to keep it up.

At the same time, stop pretending the other party is single-handedly destroying America.

Both parties have held power repeatedly during my lifetime.

Yet somehow the same winners keep winning.

Pharmaceutical companies keep getting their prices.

Defense contractors keep getting their wars.

Banks keep getting their bailouts.

And ordinary Americans keep getting the bill.

If your team keeps losing to the same opponent no matter who’s in charge, maybe the problem isn’t just the referee.

Maybe the game itself is fixed.

That’s why political identity deserves far more skepticism than pride.

Most political identities aren’t assembled through careful reasoning. They’re built through repetition, emotion, tribal loyalty, and social reward. The outrage is often genuine.

The analysis beneath it is frequently manufactured.

There’s a difference between having convictions and being conditioned.

Too many people confuse the two.

And if you can name every scandal involving the other party but can’t name a single one involving your own, you’re not informed.

You’re curated.

You’re consuming a media diet engineered to confirm your assumptions, reinforce your biases, and monetize your anger.

A healthy democracy requires citizens willing to challenge their own side.

What we have right now are fans.

Fans don’t hold anyone accountable.

Fans make excuses.

The most radical political act in 2026 isn’t voting red.

It isn’t voting blue.

It’s refusing to let either party define the terms of the conversation.

It’s recognizing that the most important political axis isn’t necessarily left versus right.

It’s power versus people.

And then honestly asking where the policies you support actually fall.

Not symbolically.

Not rhetorically.

Actually.

Ask better questions.

Who benefits from this?

Who paid for it?

Who wrote it?

Who profits from it?

What problem does it actually solve?

Not the marketing.

Not the slogan.

Not the campaign ad.

The reality.

Because when you start asking those questions, you stop being a voter in someone else’s game.

You start becoming a citizen in your own country.

And that’s deeply threatening to exactly the people who should feel threatened.

That’s the point.

And that’s what makes people uncomfortable.

If this made you uncomfortable , you’re exactly who I write for.

Free to read. Paid for the deeper cuts, early access, community, and support. Revolution Leader Membership Helps Grow Our Movement Directly

All Support is Appreciated and I am humbled to be able to write for you.

The Uncomfortable Truth • Rxan Smith • Making us uncomfortable since 2025

Rxan Smith Uncomfortable is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Enough is enough.

🎤 💧

- R❌AN Smith

If this lit something: spread it — not to your echo chamber,
but to the person on the other side of the aisle who needs to read
the half that confirms what they already suspected.

Subscribe so the algorithm does not bury this before it reaches the people who need it.
Every dollar goes to getting this further, faster. Nothing else. Make sure to engage below, and check out these three posts I’ve pasted at the bottom (below the six bottoms)

Who is (me)?

Rxan Smith Uncomfortable is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.