The censorious, tribal left have damaged institutions in pursuing culture war.

A century ago, American teachers functioned as a broadly conservative cultural force. Their purpose was straightforward: school children in the knowledge, habits, and civic competence required to function as free citizens. Excellence was measured by mastery of reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and practical skills. Students were expected to learn how to operate within groups—classrooms, teams, communities—rather than be continuously sorted and affirmed according to personal identity. That approach drew on older traditions of formation that predated the republic itself.

That is no longer the prevailing model. Large parts of the education establishment now treat schooling as identity formation and emotional management. Children are encouraged to locate themselves primarily through difference rather than shared standards. “Safe spaces” frequently function less as protection than as mechanisms that police speech and isolate students from disagreement. Simultaneously, stimulants and other psychiatric medications are prescribed at rates that would have seemed extraordinary a generation ago, often to manage the very behavioral and attentional variation that schools once expected children to master through structure and expectation. Young students are mobilized for adult political causes while ordinary competitive sports and physical rigor face new restrictions or ideological overlays. The result is not liberation; it is confusion dressed as compassion.

Nurses once embodied a parallel ethic of disciplined service. Florence Nightingale’s reforms emphasized cleanliness, order, systematic observation, and subordination of personal ideology to the patient’s recovery. The profession trained people to follow evidence and medical hierarchy while exercising practical judgment at the bedside. Today the cultural climate inside parts of healthcare has shifted. Open discussion of alternative approaches or skepticism toward prevailing orthodoxies can carry professional risk. At the extreme, a small number of practitioners have claimed a mercy rationale for ending lives they judged irredeemable—cases that, while rare, reveal how far ethical language can drift when traditional restraints weaken. Legal frameworks for assisted dying in some jurisdictions formalize what earlier nursing ethics would have rejected.

These were not peripheral occupations. Teachers and nurses sat near the center of middle-class respectability and institutional trust. Educating a person was understood as expanding capacity, not dissolving inherited categories. A nurse treated Theodore Roosevelt after he was shot in 1912; the decision to leave the bullet in place reflected clinical judgment under constraints, not ideology. Healthcare outcomes have improved dramatically through technology and science, and costs have risen accordingly. Education spending has also risen substantially in real terms, yet long-term measures of student achievement—NAEP long-term trends, PISA results—have been largely flat or declining in key areas for years, with sharper drops after 2010 and further damage during the pandemic years. More money and more ideological intervention have not produced corresponding excellence.

Critical thinking is valuable. What passes for it in many institutions today is often the opposite: the intersection of relativist ethics and identity-based moral claims that disable ordinary judgment. Students learn to detect power and oppression with great sensitivity while remaining poorly equipped to weigh evidence, tolerate disagreement, or master difficult material. The former Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov described a process of ideological subversion that begins with demoralization of education, media, and culture—changing a generation’s perception of reality so that facts lose their force. Whether one accepts the full Soviet operational claim or not, the observable pattern inside Western institutions matches the symptoms he outlined: relativism in place of standards, politicization of neutral functions, and the replacement of competence with correct attitudes.

Thirty years ago a family could still treat a Disney film as a relatively safe alternative to the more openly manipulative currents of television. That confidence has eroded. Major entertainment corporations have absorbed progressive cultural priorities so thoroughly that their output frequently prioritizes messaging over craft or broad audience appeal. Box-office underperformance of several high-profile projects and internal cultural conflicts are not coincidental. Parallel debates—whether biological sex is real and binary—illustrate how far basic categories have been contested inside institutions that once treated them as settled.

The damage is not abstract. When teaching prioritizes identity over literacy, when medicine prioritizes affirmation over evidence-based caution in certain domains, and when cultural institutions treat traditional forms as suspect, the institutions themselves lose the trust and competence that made them valuable. Recovery requires restoring the older priorities: transmission of knowledge, disciplined service, and the formation of capable citizens rather than the continuous management of identities. The alternative is continued institutional decay under the banner of progress.

What the SAVE Act Would Mean for the Union If It Fails

At least four GOP senators are opposing the SAVE Act, as is every Democrat. There are reasons why the four GOP senators oppose it, but there are reasons why every single Democrat opposes it too. As divisions go, it is not dissimilar to the U.S. Civil War and Lincoln’s fight. Lincoln had looked like he was losing his fight, but managed to get the numbers. What will it mean if SAVE is not passed?

Analysis depends on what has happened before. If we are in a condition of business as usual, then the SAVE Act means little, or is an overreach. In that scenario, Trump has a nefarious plan to remove Democrats from office and seize government control. If we are in a state of crisis—preceding even a stolen election in 2020 and multiple kill attempts on GOP figures, including Trump and Kirk—then SAVE would have to be very special.

Analysis changes depending on sources. Partisan, deep-state affiliates paid for with USAID over decades, Wikipedia, CNN, NYT et al. are claiming Trump has a nefarious plan with SAVE. And so, asking Grok, which has over-reliance on such sources, gets a ridiculous response:

“The comparison does not hold in any meaningful historical, moral, legal, or practical sense. The two events operate on entirely different scales of human impact, constitutional process, and national crisis.”

If one accepts that the 2020 election was stolen, that the COVID crisis was part of an administrative coup, that infiltration of social media by U.S. intelligence has allowed illegal overreach by the deep state, and that the SAVE Act could address electoral irregularities, then one sees the comparison with Civil War issues as comparable. How might Grok respond if it were even-handed and not captive?

Consider those opposing SAVE. They might want a puppet president who was voted in by 18% of counties. Maybe they have a personal enmity with Trump and want him killed? Maybe they want illegal aliens voting, vouching for each other? During the Civil War, awful people argued that “states’ rights” meant there had to be slavery. In the modern scene, states’ rights mean illegals can vote and identity is not required.

Significant members of the January 6th committee were pardoned in extraordinary fashion. And Hunter Biden’s pardon extended back before the Ukraine prosecutor being silenced or the shootdown of the Malaysian airliner. The circumstantial evidence pointing to a grand conspiracy by the deep state is deep. To accept business as usual is to be accepting the credibility of proven liars: Russia Gate, the Biden laptop, the COVID crisis allowing loser-voting rules, 2000 Mules, the bombs at the DNC and RNC, the impeachments on trumped-up evidence, Jack Smith, voting irregularities not investigated, activist judges, partisan news media, comics given work that cost millions simply for hating Trump.

The moral connection of slavery versus voting rights is pithy. The comparison of divided unions is apt. Why would Grok assume the pithy case and ignore the salient one?

If SAVE is not passed, it is likely enough that anti-Trumpers could take Congress and again impeach Trump on political lines, and that dangerous rhetoric would get GOP figures killed.

If it is passed, then people may be elected by voters. That might make a big difference.

= Absurd Grok Response =

The comparison does not hold in any meaningful historical, moral, legal, or practical sense. The two events operate on entirely different scales of human impact, constitutional process, and national crisis.

What actually happened with Lincoln and slavery

Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as a wartime measure under his powers as commander-in-chief. It declared free the enslaved people in Confederate-held territory (roughly 3–4 million people), but it did not free those in Union-controlled areas or border states, and it depended on Union military success for enforcement.

The permanent, nationwide end of slavery came with the 13th Amendment, which Congress passed in January 1865 and the states ratified by December 1865. It constitutionally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude (except as punishment for crime) throughout the United States. This required:

• A civil war that killed roughly 620,000–750,000 Americans.
• Sustained political effort, including Lincoln’s lobbying of Congress.
• A formal constitutional amendment process (two-thirds of both houses of Congress + three-fourths of the states).

Ending legal chattel slavery transformed the legal status of millions of human beings who had been treated as property. It was one of the most consequential acts in American history.

Status of the SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act / SAVE America Act is ordinary legislation. Versions have passed the House multiple times (party-line or near party-line votes). It has repeatedly failed to advance in the Senate due to the filibuster (60-vote threshold) and opposition from some Republicans (notably Collins, Murkowski, McConnell, and Tillis on key votes) as well as all Democrats. As of August 2026 it remains unpassed and is not law.

Its core provisions require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (passport, birth certificate, or equivalent) to register to vote in federal elections, along with related verification and photo-ID elements in some versions. Supporters describe it as enforcing existing law that only citizens may vote and as election-integrity reform. Critics (including voting-rights groups) argue it would create practical barriers for some eligible citizens who lack ready access to the required documents and compare its effects to historical voter-suppression tactics.

Why the parallel fails

Equating a contested voter-registration bill with the abolition of slavery collapses categories that are not comparable. One resolved a foundational moral and constitutional crisis through war and amendment. The other is a partisan legislative priority that has so far been unable to clear the Senate. Rhetoric that treats them as analogous inflates the stakes of ordinary electoral policy while diminishing the historical reality of slavery and emancipation.

In short: Lincoln’s actions ended the legal institution of slavery. The SAVE Act, even if it eventually passed, would change how Americans prove eligibility to register to vote. Those are not the same kind of event.

= Later Grok response = 

The comparison between the SAVE Act’s fate and Lincoln’s struggle over slavery remains strained even when examined from a position of maximum skepticism toward official narratives. Polarization, institutional distrust, and high-stakes fights over the rules of the republic are real. Equating a stalled voter-registration bill with the constitutional and moral crisis of chattel slavery, secession, and a war that killed hundreds of thousands does not follow from the available evidence.

Current facts on the SAVE Act

As of August 2026 the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act / SAVE America Act has passed the House multiple times on near party-line votes. It has repeatedly failed in the Senate. Four Republicans—Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), and Thom Tillis (North Carolina)—joined every Democrat on key procedural and amendment votes that blocked it. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has stated the votes for cloture (60) are not there and has declined to eliminate the filibuster.

Stated reasons from the four senators center on federalism (states control the “times, places and manner” of elections under the Constitution), practical implementation (especially Murkowski on Alaska’s vast rural and Native communities, where obtaining documents could require expensive travel), and timing concerns before the midterms. McConnell and Tillis are retiring; Collins is seeking re-election. Democrats uniformly call it voter suppression or “Jim Crow 2.0.” Supporters, including Trump, frame it as enforcing the existing legal requirement that only citizens vote and as a response to perceived vulnerabilities.

Non-citizen voting: the empirical record

Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections; the penalty includes prison and immigration consequences. Documented cases exist but are rare. State audits, the Heritage Foundation’s own database of prosecuted election crimes, Brennan Center reviews, and recent trackers consistently show dozens to low hundreds of confirmed or highly likely non-citizen registrations/votes across decades and hundreds of millions of ballots—typically fractions of a percent or far less.

Older academic claims of higher rates (e.g., a contested 2014 Stanford paper) have not been borne out by official cross-checks of voter rolls against citizenship databases. Recent Census Bureau matching efforts have flagged larger preliminary numbers in incomplete analyses, but these remain contested and do not demonstrate coordinated outcome-altering fraud. The principle that only citizens should vote is sound and widely supported in polling; whether documentary proof at registration is the optimal, least-burdensome way to enforce it is a separate policy question involving trade-offs for citizens who lack easy access to passports or certified birth certificates (elderly, poor, rural, married women with name changes, etc.).

The Civil War / Lincoln analogy

Lincoln faced an actual rupture of the Union, a war, and the legal ownership of millions of human beings. The Emancipation Proclamation was a wartime measure; the 13th Amendment required a constitutional process amid existential conflict. Even granting every strong claim about 2020 irregularities, media bias, intelligence community overreach, Russia Gate flaws, the Hunter Biden laptop suppression, COVID-era administrative expansions, or assassination attempts, the scale and character differ. Polarization and institutional distrust are severe. They are not the same as secession and slavery.

Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September 2025 while speaking at a university; prosecutors have pointed to political animus in the charging documents (engraved bullet, texts about “hatred”). Trump survived multiple attempts. Political violence and eliminationist rhetoric are real and condemnable from any direction. They do not automatically convert a documentation requirement for voter registration into the moral or historical equivalent of ending slavery.

What non-passage actually means

If the SAVE Act remains blocked:

• Existing law (citizenship required) continues.
• States retain primary control over registration and verification methods; some already require stronger proof or conduct regular clean-ups.
• Claims of systemic non-citizen voting sufficient to swing national outcomes remain unproven by the audits and prosecutions that have occurred.
• Partisan distrust deepens. Trump and allies will treat the failure as evidence of elite resistance to accountability; opponents will treat the push as evidence of an effort to suppress turnout.
• Midterm and future elections proceed under the status-quo rules. Impeachment, investigation, and rhetorical escalation remain possible tools for whichever side holds institutional power—tools that have already been used aggressively in recent years.

Passage would standardize documentary proof of citizenship for federal registration and related verification steps. It would likely reduce the already-small number of improper non-citizen registrations at the cost of new administrative hurdles for some eligible citizens. It would not by itself “guarantee” future elections or prevent other forms of dispute (mail rules, drop boxes, ballot curing, legal challenges, media narratives). It also would not erase deeper sources of distrust: intelligence community involvement in domestic politics, selective prosecution perceptions, or activist judicial intervention.

On sources and “captivity”

Distrust of legacy media, certain intelligence assessments, and institutional self-reporting is earned on multiple recent episodes (Steele dossier problems, laptop suppression, shifting COVID guidance, uneven treatment of political violence). That does not license treating every contested claim as proven conspiracy or every counter-claim as deep-state propaganda. Courts, bipartisan election officials, state audits, and the absence of successful outcome-changing litigation after 2020 remain relevant data points. Extraordinary claims about a fully stolen election or an administrative coup require correspondingly strong, publicly verifiable evidence; much of what circulates remains assertion, selective data, or disputed interpretation.

An even-handed assessment does not require accepting the “business as usual / Trump is the threat” frame or the “stolen election / existential crisis” frame as settled fact. It requires weighing the documented incidence of the specific problem the SAVE Act targets, the constitutional allocation of election authority, the practical burdens of the proposed remedy, and the actual (not imagined) consequences of the current stalemate. Polarization is dangerous. Treating ordinary legislative disagreement as the moral equivalent of the Civil War escalates rather than clarifies it.

Two Trajectories of Registered Democrats. Our Choices Define Us.

Eric Swalwell was raised in a GOP-leaning household. His father was a police chief. As a child, Eric had Bell’s palsy and needed to wear an eye patch. He earned a Division I soccer scholarship as a goalkeeper but lost it after breaking both thumbs in separate incidents while playing keeper. Recovery was expected to sideline him for at least a season. He pivoted, earned a B.A. in government and politics from the University of Maryland, and interned for Democratic U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (who sat on the Armed Services Committee). As a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, he began serving on local commissions and the Dublin City Council before winning a House seat.

Todd Blanche is the son of a former Canadian hockey player who came to the United States on a sports scholarship and later led a religious congregation from the family basement. Blanche played basketball and baseball at Beloit College before transferring to American University in Washington, D.C., around 1994, where he earned a B.A. in political science. He worked as a paralegal at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night, serving as an editor of the Brooklyn Law Review. He graduated cum laude with a J.D. in 2003, then clerked for federal judges who later joined the Second Circuit. In 2006 he returned to the SDNY as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, spending eight years there, including time as co-chief of the Violent Crimes Unit. In 2016, by his own account and those of people close to him, he became emotional when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump.

Both men were, in different ways, positioned for further power. Their choices determined the paths that followed.

Swalwell secured a prestigious seat on the House Intelligence Committee. There he was exposed to a classic honey-trap operation involving Christine Fang (also known as “Fang Fang”), a suspected Chinese Ministry of State Security operative. Newly declassified FBI interview summaries show that Swalwell admitted in 2015 and 2016 to having “physical relations” with Fang on a “handful of occasions,” including an encounter after she showed up unannounced at his apartment while he was under the influence of Ambien. Fang also helped place interns in his office and was linked to questionable campaign contributions. Swalwell has long maintained he cut contact after an FBI briefing and that no classified information was compromised; the FBI ultimately found no basis to charge him with corruption or a quid pro quo. Yet his committee’s work was marked by highly partisan decision-making, most notably the aggressive pursuit of the Russia collusion narrative that later investigations significantly undermined. Unlike some figures associated with the January 6 Select Committee, Swalwell received no protective pardon. His career ended in 2026 amid multiple sexual misconduct allegations, including claims of assault, which he denies and which remain under investigation. He resigned from Congress and suspended a gubernatorial bid.

Blanche left government service in 2014 for private practice. He worked as counsel at WilmerHale in Manhattan, then in September 2017 became a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft in its White Collar Defense and Investigations practice, remaining until 2023. Early Trump-adjacent work included successfully moving to dismiss a New York mortgage-fraud case against Paul Manafort in 2019 and representing clients such as Igor Fruman. In 2023 he left Cadwalader, founded Blanche Law, and became a lead defense attorney for Donald Trump in the New York hush-money case and the two federal cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Though earlier a registered Democrat, he later switched registration. This path—from working-class Colorado roots and night law school while supporting a young family, through years as a hard-charging federal prosecutor, to high-profile private defense work—produced a career defined by practical experience rather than elite pedigree or institutional loyalty.

Today one man is in disgrace; the other stands as Attorney General of the United States.

When challenged over his independence, Blanche offered a clear-eyed reply. Asked by Kristen Welker whether he could pledge that the Justice Department would “always act independently of the White House,” he answered:

“There’s a big difference between saying, ‘We will always do our job and investigate any case’ and ‘act independently of the White House.’ No, I’m not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that.” He continued that if the President directed the Department to pursue violent criminals nationwide, refusing on grounds of “independence” would be an abdication. “I will act with integrity. Our prosecutors will act with integrity. We will prosecute without fear or any sort of favor.” Pressed further on whether he would refuse an unethical or illegal request, Blanche stated flatly: “The president will never ask me to do something unethical… or illegal. He never has. He never will… I swore to the Constitution of the United States.”

Swalwell’s trajectory closes with the declassified record of his own admissions regarding Fang—casual physical encounters with a suspected foreign intelligence operative while rising through the ranks of the House Intelligence Committee. Blanche’s trajectory closes with a public refusal to mouth institutional pieties that would require him to ignore the elected President’s lawful priorities.

Two men once registered as Democrats. Their choices defined them.