In the wake of the recent ousting of Speaker Kevin McCarthy from the Speaker of the House, it’s worth revisiting the timeless wisdom of Ray Dalio, Founder, CIO Mentor, and Member of the Bridgewater Board. Dalio’s insights into the decline of truth, trust, and the rule of law are not only poignant but also eerily prescient. His words serve as a mirror reflecting the societal and political chaos we’re currently navigating.

Dalio, with his five decades of experience in the global macro world, has always been a student of history and human behavior. He has developed a template for understanding the cycles of order and disorder that societies go through, which he elaborates on in his book, “Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order.” According to Dalio, we are in Stage 5 of the internal peace-war cycle, a stage that historically precedes civil wars.

Dalio’s observations are not to be taken lightly. He outlines five major forces that drive societal changes:

1. The financial/economic force
2. The internal peace-conflict force
3. The external peace-conflict force
4. The force of nature
5. The force of man’s inventiveness

These forces interact in complex ways, leading to the cycles of order and disorder that Dalio describes. The decline of truth and trust, especially in our politicians and media, is a symptom of a society inching closer to disorder and potential conflict.

Dalio’s perspective is particularly relevant today, as we witness the erosion of trust in our institutions. The media, once considered the fourth estate and a pillar of democracy, is now viewed with skepticism. Politicians are increasingly seen as self-serving rather than public servants. The rule of law, the bedrock of a civilized society, is being questioned.

Dalio’s words remind me of a quote from Winston Churchill: “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” We are at a crossroads, and the choices we make today will shape the future of our society. It’s a time for reflection and action. We must ask ourselves the hard questions that Dalio poses and take steps to restore trust, uphold the rule of law, and seek the truth.

As Dalio suggests, we should worry, scream loudly against intolerable behaviors, and hold ourselves and others to high standards. We should also respect the judgments of the legal system, even if it’s not perfect. It’s a call to action for each one of us to be better citizens and better humans.

In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Let’s rise to the challenge and steer our society back towards order, truth, and trust.

Knowledge is Power! In a world where the lines between fact and fiction are increasingly blurred, knowledge becomes our compass. It guides us through the chaos, helps us make informed decisions, and ultimately, safeguards our democracy.

 Read the articles from Mr. Ray Dalio that I think are pertinent today.

What is now happening hasn’t happened before in our lifetimes but has happened many times throughout history—typically, just before civil wars. In my opinion, this is a VERY big, bad deal yet most people are quietly going along with it. I wonder why—do they see this differently, don’t they care, do they feel helpless? For these reasons, I am going to show you dispassionately and analytically what I’m seeing and ask you five questions to see if we by and large agree on what is happening. Then, if we agree, we can explore what we individually and collectively might do about it.   

My Perspective

Over my 50 years in the global macro world, I have focused on trying to understand the most important cause-effect relationships to bet on what’s going to happen. My experiences led me to study history to see how things worked, which led me to see that most things that are now happening have happened many times before for logical reasons. By studying many past cases, I could better understand the most important cause-effect relationships. 

In the process, I discovered that there are big, long-term cycles that transpire over many years (typically about 100, give or take about 50). These have led, and continue to lead, to big changes in circumstances that have always, and continue to, take people by surprise because they haven’t experienced them before. I have found that by understanding them I could do a much better job of anticipating big changes that didn’t happen in my lifetime but have happened many times before. For example, I see that it is now true, and that it has always been true, that a confluence of five big forces drives most of what happens in ways that are understandable. These big cycle forces are:

1. the financial/economic force (that tracks debt and debt monetization) and productivity
2. the internal peace-conflict force (that tracks wealth, values, and political gaps)
3. the external peace-conflict force (that tracks relative wealth and powers levels of leading world rival powers)
4. the force of nature that is manifest in droughts, floods, and pandemics (especially now with climate change) and
5. the force of man’s inventiveness, most importantly of new technologies (especially now via AI).

To the best of my ability, I tried to understand and then explain the cause-effect relationships and my template for understanding how the machine works in my books, and then I follow how things are transpiring relative to this template and describe them in my posts.

I believe that what is now happening is almost precisely following the template I laid out in my book, Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order in Chapter 5, “The Internal Peace-War Cycle.” We are obviously in Stage 5 of that cycle (which you can read about starting on page 167 and judge for yourself how well it describes what is now happening). I will reference the book at times in this post, but I don’t want you to have to think about the full internal order cycle to explore what’s happening now. This is because I think things are so obvious and so concerning that one doesn’t need to have that historical perspective to see it. 

The Timeless and Universal Truths and Principles About Order and Disorder That Are Most Relevant Now 

I believe that it is true for all people in all collective activities (sport, organizations, governments, etc.) that if…

a) there is no acceptable way to agree on what is probably true (e.g., there is no equivalent of instant replay in a sport) and…

b) both sides don’t trust the referees/judges because they believe that they are under the influence of the other side, and …

c) rather than judgements being made and enforced according to the rule book, they are made and enforced by the opinions of people that make up an unruly crowd…

…chaos and chaotic fighting will follow.

To me, it is obvious that this is now happening a lot and increasing.

What Do You Think?

In this piece I will ask you five questions about whether 1) most politicians in government, 2) most reporters and commentators in the media, and 3) most of the legal system do objective investigations of people and render unbiased judgements. I will also ask 4) where you think we are headed. If you choose to answer, which I hope you will do, and you write down the numbered answer to each question, then add up those numbers which will give a score representing your trust in the system. Then, if you’d like, you can share your total score and thoughts about it in the comments, which I’d love you to do. If you don’t want to do that, I’d still encourage you to think about the answers to the questions to help you reflect on the situation. After each question, I will share my answers so we can compare our thinking.

Trust in Politicians in Government 

Q1: Do you trust most politicians in government to render fair judgements of other politicians and non-politicians? Please answer 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes. If you’re planning to tally your score, I suggest you write down this number so you can refer to it easily at the end.  

As for me, I answered 1) no because, based on what I see, most elected politicians and the people they appoint are fighting against “the other side” and fighting to be elected by “being loyal” to the party position rather than being objective. For me, the quality and consistency of the political process have become much worse because it is much more biased than fair.   

Similarly, most cases that have been judged by politically appointed government officials appear to be judged more on political biases (Republican/right or Democrat/left) than unbiased attempts at an objective best decision. In fact, it is now common knowledge that the political/ideological leanings of Congressional committees often determine who is being investigated for what, with the political biases of the committee chairs leading the ideological campaign of the committee, quite like the McCarthy era. Nowadays, most Congressional investigations aren’t genuine investigations i.e., they aren’t learning experiences for those in the legislative branch to help them write better laws as they were intended—as much as they are intended to hurt and influence those people and organizations that those on the committee don’t like. Obviously, objectivity is not a highly rated quality of politicians in government and objectivity is declining, even though there are still many who nobly serve their country in the existing and very difficult environment. 

To be clear, I’m not commenting on which side—right/Republican or left/Democrat—is more guilty of politically-biased decision making. My point is simply that the system now looks to me mostly biased and unfair.   

Q2.  Do you believe that most Americans trust most politicians to render fair judgments of other politicians and non-politicians? Please answer 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes.    

I answered 2), though I was torn between 1) and 2), so 1.5 would be the number that best reflects my view. This is because poll numbers show that 40% to 50% strongly or moderately believe that the political decision-making system is not working fairly, and the numbers are trending higher—which isn’t the majority but is a dangerously high number particularly because of the strengths of the extremes. I will explain.  

There are too many polls for me to delve into here that lead me to my assessment of what most Americans think, but I will give a couple of examples highlighting the most important issues. It continues to be the case that many Americans dispute the results of the 2020 election, with 38% of Americans (and 67% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents) believing that President Biden did not win the presidency legitimately. (Footnote Monmouth). In the same Monmouth poll, only 42% of Americans believe that our system of government is “basically sound.” And, according to Gallup, just 47% of Americans express only “some trust” in the judicial branch of government, down 20% in the last two years. (Footnote Analysis: Trust in the Supreme Court is at a record low | CNN Politics).   

I could show you dozens more survey results that paint the same picture that the level of distrust has been growing. Even more concerning is that about 15% of the population is so hard right and about 10% of the population is hard left that they appear willing to fight intransigently for what they want – i.e. they won’t accept losing. In a country where there are more guns than people, I am concerned about this and would think that we should be hearing more concerns about this than we are. It is true that there are more concerns being expressed about this picture now than when I first shared my book about the changing world order which was before the January 6th attack on the Capitol. (At that time, I estimated the odds of a civil war as about 1 in 3—I now estimate it a bit over 1 in 2). In my opinion, the existing concerns still fall short of where they should be. More importantly, there is hardly any understanding of this process that has repeatedly occurred throughout history and is now leading to this concerning trajectory.

Trust in Those in the Media 

Q3: What do you think about those in the media? Do you think that most of those in the media are painting accurate pictures? Please answer 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes.

I answered 1) no. While there certainly are some high-quality objective journalists, it seems to me that they have become a rare breed. As I described in Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, this loss of trust is typical of Stage 5: “Not knowing what is true because of distortions in the media and propaganda increases as people become more polarized, emotional, and politically motivated.”

Do you think you are greeting unbiased, accurate reporting? To assess the objectivity of the stories conveyed by those in the media, I suggest that you read these stories carefully and ask if the writers have a bias and their desire to have you believe something good or bad about the person or the organization that they are writing about. I believe that you will find that most stories are biased. I find, and I believe you will too, that many writers are more interested in presenting malicious gossip about people and/or organizations with the intent to harm than they are in giving accurate, balanced reporting. They often reflect a political or social bias as they are in the political/social battle of one side against the other (e.g. the capitalists against the proletariat.)  

As an example, I thought this editorial exemplified this conflict in a classic way, though I must say that there are so many biases in the media that I can’t say that The New York Times, in this case, was as anti-capitalist as the writer implies or if the Horatio Alger Society and its members actually did something wrong. I don’t want to get into an examination of that case. My point is simply that it is frequently the case that those in the media throw around biased opinions stated as facts that lead to damaging judgements by the public. This is very bad.  

Q4: Do you think that most Americans think that most of those in the media are painting accurate pictures? Please answer 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes.  

My assessment is 1) no because the poll numbers are very clear in conveying that most Americans rate the objectivity of those in the media very badly, even worse than politicians. For example, only 7% of adults have a great deal of trust in the media (footnote Americans’ Trust In Media Remains Near Record Low (gallup.com).   

As with everything, this is happening because of how the machine works. So, what are the causes that are leading to these results?  

I believe that the now extreme distortions by many of those in the media have happened because of how the pendulum has swung to an extreme that will likely self-correct in the ways that typically occur in the cycle. For example, in the US, unlike Canada and the UK, “journalists” can knowingly publish false information about people and organizations unless those who are lied about can meet the high legal standard of proving that the journalist intentionally lied and/or was reckless. This has logically grown to become so egregious that it produced a couple of big cases that led to big judgements against the news organizations that were behind them. These cases — the Fox Dominion Case and the Alex Jones Case, along with legislative proposals in some states to hold journalists responsible for intended slander, have led some to conjecture that the pendulum is starting to swing toward levying more controls. I very much doubt that these changes will come about meaningfully enough to have any significant effects on what will happen between now and January 2025 which is likely to be a very a crazy period.

How They Work Together 

As has always been the case and is logical, those who have enemies in common work together to hurt their enemies. The pattern has happened repeatedly throughout history. In Chapter 5, of my book Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order, I described the internal order-disorder cycle transpiring in six stages and in the part describing Stage 5 of cycle, which is the stage just before the civil war, I describe what almost always happens in this stage and I believe is happening now.

In Stage 5, those who are fighting typically work with those in the media to manipulate people’s emotions to gain support and to destroy the opposition. In other words, media folks of the left join with others of the left, and media folks of the right join with others of the right in the dirty fight. The media goes wild like vigilantes: people are commonly attacked and essentially tried and found guilty in the media, and they have their lives ruined without a judge and jury…During times of great wealth gaps and populist thinking, stories that bring down elites are popular and lucrative, especially those that bring down left-leaning elites in right-leaning media outlets and those that bring down right-leaning elites in left-leaning media outlets. History shows that significant increases in these activities are a problem that is typical of Stage 5, and that when combined with the ability to inflict other punishments, the media becomes a powerful weapon. 

This old dynamic of the rise in the power of trials by opinions over trials by law (i.e. that take place within the legal system) is now called “cancel culture.” It plays out as a smear campaign intended to take down people and organizations without the rule of law. In fact, it intentionally bypasses, and becomes more powerful than the legal system in rendering judgements.   

The way it typically works is that there is a “targeted person” or “targeted organization” (i.e. the person or organization targeted to be taken down), a “complainer” (or a group of them who wants to take down the “target”), “investigative reporters,” and “amplifiers” (who take the story and modify it to make it sound like theirs, and put it out on their platforms). Often it also involves other players and sometimes doesn’t involve some of the roles I just mentioned- e.g. cancellation goes on in social media, on college campuses, around speaking events, etc. These people work together to paint a negative picture of the “target.” I call the group of such people the “attack group” which works like a mob trying to enforce vigilante justice. While in there are typically some truths woven into what is reported, the story is rarely presented in a balanced way and often is completely distorted with lots of unattributed and made-up assertions woven in to make the story the one that the investigative reporter wants it to be.

I suggest that when you see one of these attacks starting that you identify the specific people who are in each of these roles (i.e., the “target,” the “complainers,” “the investigative reporters,” and “the amplifiers”) and watch the ways these attacks are transpiring relative to this template because that will help you better understand what’s really going on in each case. 

The takedowns can be about almost anything. In this stage of the internal order-disorder cycle, it is no longer the case that what is allowed and not allowed is determined by what is legal. Nowadays, simply behaving in a way that such an “attack group” of people can lead to great penalties. The investigative reporters and their media outlets like this process because it brings them attention as fighters for the “noble causes” that their audiences are behind—e.g., fighting for those of the right or those of the left—while it also makes them money and gives them notoriety. This process is sometimes used in cases in which baseless accusations are made by “complainers” who want money to stop complaining (e.g., complaining employees who falsely claim to be mistreated). This dynamic has become so prevalent that it has become a quiet plague of sorts. Most CEOs consider this dynamic to be one of their top challenges.   

Why aren’t these take-downs fought against? Typically, it’s because the people or organizations targeted want the attention to go away as quickly as possible and don’t want to draw more attention to the situation by fighting the cases. Similarly, organizations typically drop, like a hot potato, any “target person” who works for them because they don’t want to be associated with them and they want these cases to go away. Also, this process is typically not fought against in the pursuit of justice because it is so threatening that most don’t want to antagonize those in the media. Most people are too afraid to speak up fearing that doing so will prompt those in the media to turn the process on them. 

The Decline of the Rule of Law 

Q5: How do you think the legal system is working? Do you think that it’s fair? Please answer, 1) for no, 2) for too close to call, and 3) for yes

I answered 2) i.e., too close to call, though I was equally inclined to answer 1) i.e., no, I don’t think the legal system is fair, so I think 1.5 would best reflect my thinking. It appears to me that in matters that are not political and at the local law enforcement level, the justice system works pretty fairly. However, as explained earlier, in many cases it appears to me that most politicians and most media reporters are pursuing politically based and self-serving agendas so that personal opinions of how people are supposed to behave matter as much or more than the legal system in judging people and organizations. Certainly, they are intruding on the legal system which is increasingly being challenged by those who are willing to threaten others and fight to get the outcomes they want. For example, we are now seeing some cases of politicians and jurors getting death threats to affect their judgements. The Hunter Biden case will be “another one of those” in which the political implications of it are far greater than the objective judgement of it, so it won’t be assessed to have been tried and judged without political bias.  

Also, it is an indisputable fact that the outcomes of even most filed legal cases are not resolved via the presentation of evidence by both sides in a court with fair judges/jurors/referees rendering fair judgements; instead, they are resolved in settlements with those who can bear the legal costs of great attorneys having big advantages. For these reasons, it’s hard for me to assess the legal system as being fair.  

I believe that over the next two years with election conflicts, Trump trials conflicts, and US conflicts with China and Russia ongoing, we will see the political-legal system tested to degrees and in ways that we have never seen in our lifetimes but have happened many times in history. I don’t know how this dynamic will play out, but I believe that it will be very risky for the reasons I just described I am most surprised that most people aren’t more worried about all of this. 

Like the Proverbial Frog in the Boiling Water  

Supposedly, if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water it will jump out of the pot. But if you put the frog into a pot of cold water and gradually raise the water temperature to a boil, the frog will remain there and boil to death. The point is that if things gradually get worse those experiencing these changes might not notice them until they are terribly threatening or lethal and not make the needed changes in time to save themselves.  

History shows that the moves toward great disorders such as civil wars occur through a sequence of events that individually don’t create great concerns even though they previously would have been considered unimaginably bad e.g. the failure of a presidential candidate and a large percentage of the population to accept losing elections, and their fighting against the system due to their beliefs that the rules and the referees are biased and unfair. Eventually, events lead to unimaginable disorder.

As mentioned at the outset, I wonder why I’m not now hearing more screaming about current conditions being intolerable and more worrying about where we are headed. My guess is that it’s the frog in boiling water dynamic happening.

For example, it was not many years ago that most journalists strove to report objectively and what the society determined to be good and bad was defined by the laws and judged in a court in which evidence was presented and supposedly balanced parties rendered verdicts. While it was never perfectly like that, it was much more like that than it is now. It is my view that the system worked better when people bought into it more – when most people looked to the legal system rather than the opinions and characterizations of politicians, those in the media, and others to decide if people behaved badly and should be punished.  

Conclusions 

While I will be interested in tallying-up your opinions, I suspect that we can agree that 1) the truth we get from, and the trust we have in, politicians in government and those in the media is very low, 2) they, and many others, are increasingly operating in ways that bypass and diminish the effectiveness of the legal system, and 3) this is leading to increasing chaotic fighting and the declining rule of law, so we appear to be headed in a dangerous direction.  

By following the template of the internal order and disorder cycle explained in Chapter 5 (if you care to read it) and/or by using logic to imagine where we will be in the future without the beliefs that the rules and referees are fair. One can imagine a growing risk that people will break into fights in which there is no respect for the rules, and the sides will fight to win at all cost—i.e. there will be some form of civil war. 

What can be done to prevent this should be explored more comprehensively at another time since this piece is already too long. But let’s at least agree that we should 1) worry (which would increase the chances of preventing what we are worrying about), 2) scream loudly against these intolerable behaviors, holding ourselves and others to high standards of behavior, and 3) go along with, rather than fight against, the judgments of the legal system, even though the legal system is more biased and less fair than we would like it to be. I think that it is pretty clear that if we don’t do these things, there is an uncomfortably high probability that we will experience terrible chaotic fighting.

The Failure of Kevin McCarthy is Another Step Away from Democracy and Toward Civil War

Ray Dalio: Founder, CIO Mentor, and Member of the Bridgewater Board; October 5, 2023

As you probably know, I believe that there are five major interrelated forces that are now driving most everything in ways that have never happened before in our lifetimes but have happened many times in history. They are:

1) very high levels of debt and debt creation in the US and other reserve currency countries;

2) intense levels of conflict within countries (most importantly the US) due to large wealth and values gaps and populist extremists of the right and the left fighting to win at all costs;

3) intense levels of conflict between countries (most importantly between the US and China and those aligning with them) in a classic great power conflict;

4) significant damaging acts of nature (droughts, floods, and pandemics) and;

5) mankind’s learning and deploying new technologies (most recently and notably, AI).

Just about everything that happens falls into one of these categories and this template.  Having seen this dynamic transpire many times before, I see every development within this context and wonder, are we progressing toward the classic perfect storm?  I view the recent developments related to Kevin McCarthy’s removal as related to the second of these, the internal conflict force. So, in today’s post, I am going to delve into it. 

Another Step Toward Civil War and the Loss of Democracy

In this, the latest episode of this drama, Kevin McCarthy tried to piece together a deal and a vote that required some Republicans and some Democrats to come together to support it. This was one of several bipartisan votes for this Congress that McCarthy helped to engineer in his tenuous position as the Republican speaker of the house (including Ukraine funding, raising the debt ceiling, etc.) that led to him being booted out and accused of being disloyal to his party. While I sympathize with those who worry about the increasing growth in debt, I am even more concerned about who has what powers and the choices that are being made to fight rather than to cooperate across party lines and view this development as another step away from democracy and toward civil war. 

I hope it is now clear that the two parties are squaring off into monolithic blocks that are controlled by uncompromising, win-at-all-costs extremists and that most everyone will be forced to pick a side and fight for it. While this tendency is most obvious in the Republican Party, it is also true for those in the Democratic Party. (Though the Democratic Party wisely chooses to make it less obvious, it very apparently demonstrates it in the ideological conflicts that are taking place throughout government, especially in congressional committees.) This is now a fight to win-at-all costs game in which just about anything goes, including fighting dirty (lying and cheating), and respect for the system doesn’t matter much.  

Bipartisan thoughtful disagreement that leads to compromises and voting on the basis of one’s beliefs about what is best for the country are passé.   For understandable reasons e.g. —much greater wealth and differences in values and people being fed-up with the system not working for them – and the political system has (d)evolved from where it was when Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil and their constituents had more principles in common that bound them together than those that were opposed and divided them. Because those now controlling the two parties do not want party members to work across party lines and because there is certainly no room for people who put the interest of the country above loyalty to their parties, we are now in a period of much greater conflict both within and between the parties. 

The Loss of Power for Those in the Middle Who are More Moderate

Ironically, the parties are more extreme than most people, so there is no party for the vast majority of Americans to go to fight for what they want most.  Having studied history, I have seen that this dynamic always worked the same way for the same reasons because when differences become as irreconcilable as they are now and trust in the system becomes as low as it is now, there is a strong tendency for small groups of passionate leaders to gain followers to fight for their sides. This continues until everyone has to must pick a side and fight. It is for this reason that there is an uncomfortably high risk of some type of civil war.

Since I’m repeatedly asked and I can’t help but think about what can be done to rectify things, I will share what I think.  I explained this five years ago more comprehensively than I can do here in my piece, “Why and How Capitalism Needs to be Reformed” but will briefly summarize my views here. There is only one path that will succeed in preventing civil war and promote working well together to make real improvements and that is to have a very strong middle. This strong middle would consist of bipartisans who are bound together to beat the extremists and then go on to reform the system and deal with our structural problems — i.e., to reform the system to work well for most people by creating broad-based capabilities, productivity, and prosperity.  While I have lots of ideas about how to do this, my ideas are not that important now (or, maybe ever) relative to the need for these bipartisan reforms to happen one way or another. 

Since all big winning movements start with a great leader and his/her constituents, if I were to have one wish, it would be for a very strong bipartisan leader with a strong constituency of people to emerge from the political middle. The members of this middle have more in common with each other even though they are of different parties than they have with the extremists of their own parties, so they will fight and win against those from the extremes bringing the country together and they win. They will go on to make major reforms to the system so it works well for most people.  My dream would include having a president who is so bipartisan that he/she would have a bipartisan cabinet and then convene a long constitutional convention type gathering of smart bipartisan moderates to produce a plan to reform the system so that it provides more equal opportunities and ways for most people to be productive.  While this may be a pipedream, a more realistic possibility, but probably still unrealistically ambitious, is to have those members of both parties who believe that working across party lines to solve problems to simply declare themselves to be “bipartisan” and to form a voting bloc that together would have enough swing votes to determine outcomes in the House and Senate.  Of course, that would require them to have some amount of courage to break with the monolithic party extremists.  Given the alternative, which is a civil war of some form, such courage is now warranted by those who truly believe in maintaining bipartisan democracy.

Wondering what a bipartisan platform would look like, I identified what the majority (60%) of Americans believe about the major contentious issues which I show below. Though people could argue for what they each think is best and let that argument split them, most moderates could agree to a platform along these lines and preferable to those positions and policies advocated by the extremists on the two sides.  Below is a list of those sentiments that over 60 percent of Americans have that could be the basis for a bipartisan agenda. 

I also imagine that states will inevitably and increasingly go in their own directions. People will increasingly go to states that suit their beliefs and circumstances and states will fight the central government about what they will do. This will be a reversal of what has happened over many decades during which the power of the central government has grown a lot relative to the power of state governments to become much greater than the way our founding fathers envisioned the relationship should be when they wrote the Constitution. I believe that path of moving to a strong bipartisan middle that coincides with what the majority of Americans want, working in bipartisan reforms to the system, and allowing more federalist state rights would be the best path forward. Most likely, this won’t happen so, most importantly, stay on top of what’s happening and navigate it well for yourself and the people you care about.  I hope these communications are of some use to you in your doing this. 

Content Disclosure -This content is primarily for educational enrichment. It’s not a substitute for professional accounting, legal, tax, insurance, or investment counsel. While we believe the information shared is both accurate and reliable, we don’t guarantee its completeness or precision. The insights might include forecasts, opinions, and discussions about economic conditions, market scenarios, or investment strategies. However, these are subject to change, and there’s no assurance they’ll prove accurate. Always consult a qualified expert to address your unique situation and to stay informed about current applicable laws and rules. 

 Select Policy Views Held by >60% of Americans