Two Worlds, One Nation

Those of us who live in the United States live in one nation but it is comprised of two worlds.

I don't think that the United States has ever been more widely divided.

That includes the Civil War period.

During the Civil War there was an enormous fracture in the country.

However, it was centered mostly around the issues of slavery and states' rights.

Today the ideological divide encompasses almost everything.

Abortion.

Climate Change.

Crime.

DEI.

Immigration.

The Economy.

Race Relations.

Transgender Policy.

Energy Policy.

Foreign Policy.

Iran.

The differences are not shades of gray either.

In many cases there are policy differences that are polar opposites.

It even extends to whether we want to fix the leaks and change the color of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall.

Contrast what was happening on the White House lawn during the Biden years to what is going to occur in the same space when a Ultimate Fighting Championship event is to be held there on June 14.

 

Source: https://x.com/WhiteHouse46/status/1667701935284137985

Could there be a larger divide?

Consider this recent Elon University poll that asked the question of of whether there was any other country on earth that respondents would rather live than in the United States.

55% of Democrats stated they would rather live in another country.

Only 10% of Republicans would.

Source: https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/819/2026/05/Elon-University-Poll-America250-topline-6-2-26.pdf

On the question "Are you proud to be an American?".

83% of Republicans stated that statement was very true.

Only 26% of Democrats did.

Source: https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/819/2026/05/Elon-University-Poll-America250-topline-6-2-26.pdf

Those poll results tell you everything you need to know.

Two separate worlds exist in one nation.

Can the division be resolved?

We have actually been living through a fairly unique period in American history with the amount of political division that has existed over the last 30 years.

Neither the Republicans or Democrats have been able to gain significant majorities in Congress.

This is the exception rather than the rule in American history.

Consider this chart showing the control of Congress between 1855 and 2027.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

It has been generally true that one party has held a dominant position in Congress in which majority support for its agenda is backed by voters.

This was the case for the Republicans for most of the period between the Civil War and the Depression.

The Democrats then took majority power beginning with FDR and the New Deal until the mid-1990's when we entered the current division in both the country and in Congress.

As you can see from the chart above. neither party has been able to capture a solid majority of support during the lst 30 years further underscoring that we are two worlds living in one nation right now.

Can we expect this to change?

History tells us that it will.

How will it come about?

Conflicts and wars do not end until one side accepts their fate.

Peace is not achieved until one side realizes the balance of power is such that it is futile to continue the conflict.

The costs of continuing the conflict are finally determined to be greater than the hope that any benefit is going to be gained.

There are times that both sides come to that conclusion, each accepts their fate, and an uneasy truce is the result.

However, true peace is generally only achieved when one side effectively admits that their cause is lost and ceases putting up a fight.

Will we get to that point with Iran?

This was the case with Germany and Japan in World War II and it was the case with the Confederacy in the Civil War. 

In politics, it manifests itself in a little different way. 

One side becomes effectively marginalized and has limited power when they are on the losing side of a big issue. 

This was the case with Democrats who opposed the abolition of slavery in the name of states' rights in the 1860's. As a result, Republicans took control of the levers of power in the U.S. Congress and the Democrats lost their central issue based on the will of the American people.

The same was true for Republicans in the 1930's as they argued against the expanded use of federal powers beginning with The New Deal. They lost the argument to the American people and were in a period of irrelevancy in Congress for over 60 years.

It should not go unnoticed that both of these crisis periods in American history acted as a catalyst for one party to become dominant with the American voters. One party was judged to be with the mainstream of American voters. The other essentially became marginalized.

It remains to be seen how the two worlds we live in right now in the United States will come together with one worldview.

The American people will make that determination.

That determination will probably be made by those who identify as Independents who now make up a record 45% of the electorate after surging during the last 15 years.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx

Independents are the group that have literally found themselves caught in the middle as Republicans got more conservative and Democrats got much more liberal in the last 30 years.

Republicans who identify as conservatives has risen by 18 points since 1995.

Democrats who identify as liberal rose by an astounding 36 points over the same time period,

However, the political views of Independents continued to be fairly stable.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx

The current two worlds, one nation divide we are in will continue until such time as Independents make.a decisive ideological or political shift one way or the other.

I am uncertain of the catalyst that will lead to this shift but I would be surprised if we are still as divided as we are now by the time the 2032 elections have been decided.

Will it be the Republicans or the Democrats who become marginalized by that time?

Challenging Times Ahead For Colleges

There is a lot going on lately in the world of colleges and universities.

Harvard received a lot of attention lately with news that its faculty had approved a cap on the number of A grades that could be provided in each class.

Source: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/university-news/harvard-faculty-approve-a-cap-on-a-grades

In 2025, a Harvard analysis found that solid A’s comprised 60 percent of all undergraduate letter grades  up from just 24 percent in 2005.

Here is a sampling of the percentage of A's in some Harvard programs last year.

Seeing all those A's in Chemical and Physical Biology makes me believe that those Harvard professors are propping up the academic record of the Pre-Med majors.

However, it is in the Arts and Humanities that the greatest grade inflation has occurred.

80% of all grades given out in those divisions at Harvard were A's.

Harvard's average GPA was in the 2.5-2.7 range in the 1950's.

It had risen to 3.8 in 2022.

Credit: https://grimoiremanor.substack.com/p/will-grade-caps-improve-student-learning

At the same time, more and more universities have realized that their elimination of standardized tests (such as the SAT and ACT) in the admission process was a big mistake.

Source: https://thecollegeinvestor.com/77443/colleges-are-requiring-sat-and-act-scores-again-heres-the-full-list-for-2027/?srsltid=AfmBOop_gB9aVWvx3IyYKYwQKTK22Xtj6IT5M-ID4Xv-kI5hnadLF582

The University of California system has not yet followed suit but hundreds of UC faculty in the STEM fields in particular have urged a return of the SAT and ACT in admission decisions.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-05-27/uc-math-professors-demand-return-of-sat-for-stem-admissions

Without standardized testing in admissions, professors said they don’t know whether incoming students can handle college-level math. The open letter, addressed to top UC leaders, asks for SAT or ACT exams to be required beginning in fall 2027 and for STEM faculty to be given formal oversight of readiness standards in their majors.

“We now observe preparation gaps so severe that instructors must reteach middle-school mathematics while simultaneously teaching the material students need for sciences, engineering, economics, and other quantitatively demanding fields,” they warned.

At the beginning of the trend to do away with the SAT and ACT tests I predicted it would not end well.

The argument was that the tests were racist and not representative of how a student would perform in college.

This was despite reams of data over the years that proved the exact opposite.

As I pointed out in my blog post "The SAT Meets PC" in 2018, it also ignored the fact that the SAT was originally developed in order to level the playing field and provide a means for elite colleges to identify ability and aptitude in students that reached beyond the family connections and East Coast boarding schools that dominated Ivy League admissions before its introduction.

Using a standardized test that measured one's aptitude for college work leveled the playing field. It allowed schools to find overlooked talent who may not have had all the advantages of the prepsters on the East Coast.

It did not matter if you hailed from Michigan, Montana or Mississippi and did not have the same access to a quality high school education that the affluent had. The SAT showed whether you had the ability to do the work. The SAT also allowed admissions officers to objectively compare a student from the Choate School with students from Chillicothe, Ohio and South Central LA.

You can therefore argue that standardized testing has been one of the biggest factors allowing deserving, overlooked people to be recognized and receive opportunities to get ahead in the military, business and education  sectors over the years. This led to millions being elevated in their class status in the United States.

In fact, it would be difficult to point to anything else that has had a bigger impact on improving class mobility and opportunity for deserving people over the last 75 years.

What was the real reason that the SAT, ACT and other standardized tests came under attack?

They were an obstacle for colleges and universities to admit who they wanted to admit.

The problem was that too many of those students were ill-prepared to do the work.

Connected to all of this we are now looking at increasing enrollment pressures for colleges in the coming years.

The number of 17 year olds, which is the primary pool for future college enrollees, will plummet over the next 15 years.

There will be 700,000 fewer 17 year olds in 2035 than there were in 2025.

At the same time, we are also seeing a massive shift in views regarding the importance of a college education.

Those views have largely been shaped by increases in college costs that have vastly outstripped household income and home purchase costs along with almost everything else.

This has resulted in more and more people to question the return on investment of a college education and that trend is likely to accelerate in concert with concerns about what effects AI will have on many college majors.

All of these facts will undoubtedly exert considerable financial pressures on mamy colleges over the next decade. 

Colleges in the Northeast and Midwest will face the toughest environment due to a combination of a greater number of educational institutions and poorer demographics than in the South and West---excess supply and decreased demand---twin financial stressors.

Forbes magazine recently did a financial report card on small private colleges that were in the worst shape.

Schools like Hiram College, Baldwin Wallace University and Wittenberg University in my home state of Ohio were listed as those that were at high risk financially as were Rider University and Drew University in New Jersey.

Can schools like these survive the next 10 years?

Finally, take into account the fact that most colleges could not survive at all if it were not for the federal student loan program.

Federal student loans provide about $100 billion to colleges and universities annually.

The simple truth is that college costs could have never gone up at the rate they have without a supply of money to pay for it. 

It is not a coincidence that college costs have gone up in lock step with the availability of student loan debt.

Student loan debt outstanding is $1.7 trillion compared to $400 billion 20 years ago.

Just as is the case with health care providers, colleges have become heavily dependent on the flow of federal money into the system.

As more student loan funds became available, the easier it became for colleges to raise tuition costs.  Ironically, a program that was designed to assist students to afford college seems to be making it more unaffordable with each passing year.

The obvious conclusion is that increases in college costs and the debt supporting it are unsustainable longer term.

Over the next decade more and more colleges will have to deal with this reality.

The Big Beautiful Bill that passed last year in Congress had several provisions in it to encourage the highest cost colleges to reduce their prices.

This was done through the use of limits on student loans.

These limits were targeted most specifically at graduate/professional programs which have disproportionate levels of debt compared to their size.

Graduate school borrowers make up over 50% of all outstanding federal student loan debt but only represent 20% of the borrowers.

These are the limits of the amounts of federal student loans that can be borrowed compared to previous law.

Source: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/an-analysis-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-acts-effect-on-student-loans/

There is no limit on students that secure private loans.

The new law also institutes a “do no harm” test for higher education. The law revokes a degree program’s eligibility for federal student loans if the earnings of its graduates are too low relative to the cost required to obtain a degree.

The provisions of the law take effect for new loans taken after July 1, 2026.

It appears the new rules are already having some effect on high college costs.

The University of California Irvine just announced it is reducing costs for its MBA programs to make them more accessible and affordable in reaction to the new loan limits.

Source: https://thecollegeinvestor.com/80372/uc-irvine-cuts-mba-tuition-to-99000-to-slip-under-new-federal-loan-cap/

The program cost reductions were $30,000 to $48,000.

Source: https://thecollegeinvestor.com/80372/uc-irvine-cuts-mba-tuition-to-99000-to-slip-under-new-federal-loan-cap/

All of this raises question as to how it is that UC Irvine decided they could charge so much with federal student loans picking up the tab but not so much when that money was no longer an option?

We can only hope that this is the beginning of a trend.

However, the overriding trend is that colleges are going to be in for a challenging decade ahead.

It is likely that in ten years the higher education landscape will look a lot different than it does today.

Pride Before A Fall?

June is Pride Month.

The Pride we are supposed to celebrate is not American Pride or Pride In Work or Pride In Accomplishment.

You know the Pride I am talking about it.

It has become so ingrained in our society that every major league baseball team except for one (the Texas Rangers) is going to have a Pride Night this season.

My hometown team, the Cincinnati Reds, gave away an exclusive Reds Pride cross body bag (I kid you not) on Pride Night a few nights ago.

You will see numerous other professional franchises and other businesses also lining up with other "Pride" promotions this month.

It has become impossible to get away from the political posturing on the LGBTQ+ issue whether it is sports or anything else in our popular culture today.

I am not so sure that this attempt by KLM Airlines to show inclusivity worked out so well in making the point they wanted to.

Pride Month is only a small part of this as I pointed out in a blog post from two years ago.

There are plenty of other opportunities to recognize the LGBTQ+ community throughout the year.

The calendar has gotten awfully crowded with LGBTQ+ visibility, awareness and pride days, weeks and months.

One person did a calculation on X that determined that there are 145 calendar days in the year devoted to celebrating LGBTQ+ in some way.

Has all of this gotten a little out of hand?

A few examples.

February 19-25---Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week

Month of March---Bisexual Health Awareness Month

March 1---Zero Discrimination Day

April 12---Day of Silence

April 13---International Day of Pink (Opposing Homophobia)

April 26---Lesbian Visibility Day

May 16---Honor Our LGBT Elders Day

May 19--International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia

May 19---Agender Pride Day

May 22---Harvey Milk Day

Maty 24---Pansexual and Panromantic Awareness and Visibility Day

Month of June---Pride Month

June 28---Stonewall Riots Day

June 28---Gay Pride Day

July 6---Omnisexual Visibility Day

July 11-17---Bisexual Awareness Week

July 14---International Non-Binary Day

July 16---International Drag Day

August 14---Gay Uncles Day

September 15-21---Bisexual Awareness Week

September 23---Bisexual Visibility Day

Month of October---LBGT History Month

October 11---National Coming Out Day

October 17-24---Genderfluid Visibility Week

October 19---Spirit Day ((Support for LGBTQ+ Youth)

October 20---International Pronoun Day

October 20-26---Asexual Awareness Week

October 26---Asexual Awareness Day

Month of November---Trans Awareness Month

November 6---Trans Parent Day

November 8---Intersex Solidarity Day

November 13-19---Trans Awareness Week

November 20---Trans Day of Awareness 

December 1---International AIDS Day

December 8---Pansexual Pride Day

A Gay Uncles Day? I am an uncle. Is there no day for heterosexual uncles like me?

A Trans Parent Day? Why isn't Mother's Day or Father's Day sufficient?

Honor Our LGBT Elders Day? What happened to just honoring all elders?

How have we gotten to this point?

A recent Gallup survey indicated that 9% of the U.S. adult population identifies as LGBTQ+.

However, almost 60% of that total is bisexual.

Lesbian and gays make up only 3% of the population. Transgender another 1%.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/percentage-americans-lgbt.aspx

It is also important to understand that these numbers are overwhelmingly skewed by responses from those between the ages of 18-29.

23% of those in the 18-29 age cohort identified as LGBTQ+ in the survey.

Of that number, females outnumber men by almost a 3:1 margin (31.4% of 18-29 age females identify as LGBTQ vs. 11.4% of men.).

It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of women in that number also identify as Bisexual rather than lesbian, queer or trans.

By contrast, only 2.3% of those age 65+ identify as LGBTQ+ in any form.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/332522/percentage-americans-lgbt.aspx

Did something in basic biology change over the years or is this an indication that media, entertainment. cultural and peer influences have been primarily responsible for this change?

However, there are hints that the trends that have driven LGBTQ identification among young people are fading.

CDC data from its Behavioral Risk Surveillance System shows a sharp decline in those identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual over the last couple of years after surging in the previous decade.

Note that there has been almost no change at all for those in the age 45+ age group over the entire period.

It has consistently hovered in the 2%-3% range.

Credit: https://www.generationtechblog.com/p/non-heterosexual-identity-is-in-free

Support for LGBTQ+ issues from the voting public has also started to fade in the last couple of years according to another Gallup survey that was just released this week.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/media/gallup-poll-finds-americans-support-lgbtq-issues-sliding-backward-amid-cultural-shift

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/710810/support-lgbtq-issues-remains-down-peak.aspx

This has been driven principally by a shift in views about the morality of gay and lesbian relationships and transgenderism among Republicans in particular but is also seen with Independents as well.

56% of Republicans said that homosexuality was morally acceptable in 2022.

That numbers has fallen to 35% today.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/710810/support-lgbtq-issues-remains-down-peak.aspx

22% of Republicans said it was morally acceptable to change one's gender in 2021.

It is now just 5%.

However, even among Democrats, support for changing one's gender as being morally acceptable has dropped from 67% in 2021 to 60% today.

What do I see as behind these changing attitudes, particularly with Republicans and Independents?

The LGBTQ+  activists have overplayed the Pride mantra.

We were told that "love is love" and that gays deserved respect and the opportunity to marry like everyone else.

If they had that, everything would be fine.

However, all that did was embolden the LBGTQ activists to do more to indoctrinate children and attempt to normalize more of these behaviors.

In addition, transgenderism was pushed on us to the extent that no one could even define what a woman is, we needed to surgically change the gender of children and biological men had to be allowed to play women's sports.

All of it was then put under the PRIDE umbrella and pushed at everyone and in everything including attending a simple baseball game.

All of it reminds me of this simple Bible verse.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs 16:18 KJV

Has the fall begun?

This and That---June 1, 2026

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

BeeLine Record For Most Views 

I recently reported that BeeLine had become one of the top 1% of blogs with an average of more than 100,000 monthly views.

Source: Google AI 

Source: Google Analytics

In May, 2026, BeeLine content had almost 160,000 views in the 30 days ending May 30. 

Bloggers can make decent monthly incomes if they generate consistent content and a high volume of monthly views.

However, it has never been my intent to monetize BeeLine's content. 

I have never done it and will never do it in the future.

For context, this chart shows the earning potential of bloggers based on a Blogging Income Survey from 2024.

Source: https://www.productiveblogging.com/how-much-do-bloggers-earn-2024/

My reward will continue to be the VALUE you receive from BeeLine and nothing more.

Thank you for your support and referrals.

Is It Self Control?

In my last blog post I wrote about the Dunedin Study and its conclusion that self control was the most important factor in determining how an individual would succeed in life.

I could not help but think about that study when I saw this FBI data on murderers sorted by race, gender and age.

A few observations.

• Black males between the ages of 5-14  (4.9/100,000) are more likely to be murderers than White males between the ages of 35-64 (3.6/100,000).
• Black females between the ages of 15-24 (16.9/100,000) are 12 times more likely to murderers than White females of the same age (1.4/100,000) and 3.4 times more than Hispanic females (4.8/100,000) of the same age.
• Overall, Black males commit murder at a rate of 18 times that of White males over their lifetimes.

Credit: https://x.com/IsabellaMDeLuca/status/2056475983067156882

Is this due to poverty, culture, missing fathers in the home or the lack of basic self control?

It is probably a combination of all four but more emphasis on the importance of teaching self control at early ages could have real benefits for society.

Political Divide In Georgia

Interesting data from the recent primary election in the state of Georgia.

89% of those who cast Republican ballots were White.

On the other hand, 59% of those who voted Democrat were Black.

Males voted Republican by a margin of 9.4 points.

Females voted Democrat by 17.7 points.

42% of all Democrat votes were cast by Black women.

White males made up only 9% of all Democrat votes.

Source: https://x.com/TonerousHyus/status/2059292931786207468

Should Have Kept Betting on Elon

Daimler AG, the parent company of Mercedes Benz, acquired a 9.1% equity interest in Tesla for $50 million in 2009.

It eventually sold the entire stake by 2014 for $740 million---a very handsome profit.

If held, that position today would be worth $140 billion.

The current market cap of Mercedes-Benz Group AG (the new name for the company since 2022) is $58.5 billion.

Mercedes makes great vehicles.

However, it could have done much better just betting on Elon Musk.

It is also worth noting that a $2,600 investment in Tesla at its IPO in 2010 would be worth $1 million today.

Musk is scheduled to take SpaceX public on June 12 with a target valuation for the company at $1,8 trillion.

If the IPO is successful at that target price SpaceX would have a higher market cap than Tesla which is currently around $1.6 trillion.

Can We Expect A Conservative Pope in 40 Years?

The recent leaders of The Vatican might be considered a little on the liberal side.

Some suggest that Pope Leo and Francis before him would be considered progressive socialists if they were politicians.

I thought data below provided interesting context.

Priests ordained in the 1960's and 1970's describe their theology overwhelmingly as progressive.

However, in the last 20 years. the theological trend of newly ordained priests has moved dramatically towards more conservative views.

This might mean that the odds are high that we will get a conservative Pope in about 40 years.

Self Control and Success

A number of years ago I came across an experiment in which preschoolers were placed in a room with a delectable snack right in front of them---a marshmallow or cookie.

The child was told that the treat was for them.

However, at that point the person running the experiment told the child they had to leave the room for 15 minutes.

The youngster is told they can eat the treat now but if they wait until the adult gets back they can have two treats rather than just one.

The original experiment was done by Stanford psychologist Walter Mischell in 1970 to attempt to measure the extent that self gratification early in life predicts later life success.

It can be quite humorous watching what children go through in order to maintain self control.

The researchers generally found that the children that were the most successful at overcoming immediate self gratification did things to distract themselves from the prize in front of them.

Here is a YouTube video of a couple of kids that did the experiment in the U.K.

If the video does not play in your browser here is the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8M7Xzjy_m8

I have done the experiment with all of my nine grandchildren.

Here is a photo from the first one I did with two of my older grandsons from almost a decade ago.

They both ended up with two marshmallows.

In follow up studies, Mischell found correlations between the results of the marshmallow experiment and success later in life.

Some have questioned the study and argued that a significant factor in whether a child in these experiments is willing to delay gratification is the level of trust they have in who made the promise.

Trust in believing there will really be a larger reward is undoubtedly a significant factor in delaying gratification that is right before you.

I recently came across another study (credit to https://x.com/sukh_saroy/status/2058099716790043074 who wrote a great summary of the research) that reinforced the importance of delayed gratification and self-control as a foundational element in a successful life.

It is referred to as The Dunedin Study that involved husband and wife researchers Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt.

It started in 1972 at a single hospital in Dunedin, New Zealand. Every baby born there in a 12-month window was enrolled. 1,037 of them in all. The study is still running 45 years later.

Incredibly, over 90 percent of the original participants are still being tracked. Most longitudinal studies like this fail to retain 50 percent of participants within 10 years.

The researchers measured everything. Blood. DNA. Brain scans. Income. Criminal records. Romantic relationships. Drug use. Dental health. Sleep. Mental health. Lung function. 

They flew participants who had moved abroad back to Dunedin every few years for a full day of assessments. Some of those people now live in seven different countries. They still show up.

Perhaps motivated by Mischell's research a few years before, the researchers also measured each child's self control.

They watched 3-year-olds in a research lab and rated their ability to wait, regulate frustration, follow instructions, and resist impulsive reactions. 

They added teacher ratings and parent ratings. They added the children's own self-reports as they grew older. They combined all of it into a single highly reliable score of self control

When those in the study reached age 32 they assessed adult outcomes for the group on their physical and mental conditions, substance dependence, financial difficulty, criminal convictions and single parenting.

Everything pointed to one critical element that separated those with successful vs. unsuccessful outcomes.

Self Control.

If you think about it, self control is central to so many of life's decision.

Do we choose yogurt or a doughnut for breakfast?

Do you choose to stay home and study the night before an exam or go to a party?

Do you go to bed with someone on the first date or kiss them on the cheek and go home?

Do you react with anger at the smallest offense or take it in stride?

Do you save for retirement or do you spend everything and more to live for today?

The study revealed that children with the highest self control traits had the best adult outcomes.

When they controlled for IQ, family income, social class, even the same parental upbringing (siblings), the result held.

In fact, it was also clear that the higher the self control scores were as children the better the outcomes as adults. Lower self control ended up with worse outcomes. There was a consistent correlation.

The finished paper they published in 2011 was plainly titled.

Source: https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1651629222231.pdf

Those that want to diminish the study's findings argue that the conclusion sounds like a life sentence handed down to a child before they even start living due to one single inborn trait.

However, the authors pointed out in the study that while some children had naturally higher abilities at self control, they saw improvements in self control between childhood and adolescence. Those individuals  then ended up with adult outcomes far better than their early scores predicted.

Therefore, self control is not a fixed trait. It is a muscle than can be developed even through adulthood.

The reason adults struggle with money, weight, addiction, and relationships is rarely intelligence. It is the gap between what you want right now and what you want in ten years, and which side of that gap your nervous system is built to listen to.

However, self-control is the one childhood trait that nobody seem to focus on very much. Schools focus on test scores. Parents focus on activities for their kids or are too busy and do not have the patience to teach self control. Coaches focus on performance. The part of the brain that decides between five seconds from now and five years from now is left to develop on its own. 

The data shows it usually does not develop very well by itself.

This leads to the question as to what improving a child's self control at a young age would ultimately mean to society overall?

Better health outcomes. Less crime. More financial stability. Better personal relationships and fewer one-parent families. 

It would undoubtedly lead to a better society.

For example. consider the differences that were found in the study between low and high self control in childhood and the chances that an adult will end up being a single parent.

60% in the low self control quintile ended up in a single parent child rearing situation vs. less than 30% in the high self control cohort.

Source: https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1651629222231.pdf

In the case of criminal convictions, the low self control group as children ended up with three times the criminal convictions as adults in the high self control group.

Source: https://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/files/1651629222231.pdf

What I also found interesting in all of the research findings of the Dunedin Study is that the results and conclusions are clearly delineated in the Bible.

The Bible continually warns us about the need for self control, to avoid temptations of the flesh and to put our faith and trust in God.

A man without self-control

is like a city broken into and left without walls

Proverbs 25;28

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Galatians 5:22–24

For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.

2 Peter 1:5–9

For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Romans 8:13

Proving once again there is nothing new under the sun.

Most everything that leads to success requires that you start with self control.

The Bible teaches it.

The Dunedin Study documented it.

As for you, after reading this put aside your own self control.

Forward this to someone who might benefit from this information.

The General and His Soldiers

I was invited to speak about my blog and observations about the current political environment at a local Republican party club meeting in May of 2016.

This was right at the point that Donald Trump looked to have wrapped up the votes needed to be the Republican party nominee for President that year.

The meeting was attended by most of the local, county and area Republican officeholders.

In short, officeholders that were almost all beholden to the Republican establishment.

They all viewed themselves as the Republican party.

I saw the discomfort in most of them that night as they attempted to process the fact that the outsider, Donald Trump, was going to represent the Republican party in the 2016 election.

Keep in mind that the Ohio Governor at the time, John Kasich, had been the last to defiantly march on as a virulently anti-Trump candidate despite the fact that Trump won primary after primary election.

A main theme of my talk that night was raising the question as to whether "The Fourth Turning" had set the stage for the political success of Donald Trump.

You can read my blog post "Has The Fourth Turning Brought Us Trump" written on May 10, 2016 if you are interested.

I pointed out the uncanny list of themes that the authors of the book The Fourth Turning had predicted would make a successful political candidate as we entered that cycle of history.

Keep in mind that The Fourth Turning was published in 1997.

Those themes closely matched Trump's campaign rhetoric two decades later.

These were the winning trends from a political standpoint for a politician in The Fourth Turning according to the authors, Neil Howe and William Strauss.

• Calls to close the gap between rich and poor
• Reverse the decline of the middle class
• Expand children's programs relative to senior programs
• Restore an ethic of personal responsibility
• De-fund time-encrusted bureaucracies
• Promote traditional values
• America will become more isolationist than today in it unwillingness to coordinate with other countries 
• America will be less globally dependent than it is today with smaller cross-border trade and capital flows
• The economic role of government will shift toward far more spending on defense and public works than on elder care and debt service.

I then stated this.

Look at some of the words above and see if you don't agree that in some ways it seems as if Trump has a keen understanding of where we are and what people are looking for. 

It is as if he is looking ahead and the Republican establishment can only see what is behind them.

"Decisive action".  There is very little gray in Trump's outlook.

"Assert public authority."  Think about Trump's views on eminent domain.

"Aggravate rather than alleviate societal pressures." Trump's views and statements on immigration.

"Reverse the decline of the middle class."  His major voting target is forgotten working class voters.

"De-fund time-encrusted bureaucracies."  His call to consider the de-funding of NATO.

"Promote traditional values."  "Make America Great Again." 

"More isolationist."  Very consistent with his views on the Middle East.

"Less globally dependent".  His attacks on NAFTA, China, Japan on trade.

"Defense and Infrastructure."  Two of Trump's favorite topics in every speech. 

When I went over all of this in my speech I could see the obvious unease among the Republican officeholders in the room rise even further.

At the time, the Republican establishment in Ohio and elsewhere were saying that Trump did not represent the Republican party.

The Republican officeholders in that room were soon going to have to decide whether they were on or off the Trump Train.

There was real risk in choosing whether they were with him or against him especially considering that their Governor was against him. The decision they made could end up being a career-ender. 

Seeing all of this I told them I understood the difficult position they were in.

However, I reminded them of one important fact.

The people are sovereign in our system. Their power is absolute  Unfortunately, too many people don't believe it. The simple fact is that politicians have no power unless the people provide it.

Laws that do not have public backing do not survive over the long term. Lawmakers who make laws that people do not support do not stay in office very long. Politicians who do not do the will of the people soon need to find other employment.

The reality was that the Republican officeholders did not determine what the Republican party stood for---the people who vote do.

I told them that I did not know whether Trump would win or not in November.

The only thing I knew for sure was that if he won the Republican party would change with him whether they liked it or not.

And that would be the case until the people decided they no longer backed Donald Trump and his agenda.

As it turned out, no truer words were ever spoken to that group.

Trump ended up winning Ohio in the general election by 8 points in 2016.

He proved he not only had a majority of Ohio Republican voters but an absolute majority of all Ohio voters supporting his "Make America Great Again: policies.

He won by 8 points again in 2020 and by 11 points in 2024.

Nobody hears anything about John Kasich anymore. 

Trump has transformed the Republican party in his own image.

The transformation is even more profound than what we witnessed in the Reagan Revolution.

Consider what has just transpired over the last month.

Five incumbent Republican state senators who voted against a House redistricting plan that would have favored Republicans were defeated in primary elections when Trump endorsed the challengers.

A sixth incumbent Republican defeated a challenger by a mere 3 votes in which a recount has been requested.

Incumbent Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy placed third in a Republican primary to Trump-endorsed Julia Letlow and challenger John Fleming who will face off in a runoff election next month.

Cassidy had voted to convict Trump in the impeachment related to January 6th.

Republican 7-term Congressman Thomas Massie from Kentucky was defeated in a primary election against Trump-endorsed Ed Gallrein.

Massie had invoked anger from many for voting against major Trump agenda items including the Big Beautiful Bill and the Border Wall.

Finally, four-term incumbent Senator John Cornyn was defeated in the Texas Republican Senate primary last night after Trump endorsed Ken Paxton.

The headline from The New York Times this morning.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/26/us/politics/texas-republican-senate-cornyn-paxton.html

Paxton won 64%-36% despite reportedly being outspent 10:1.

That alone tells you the value of Trump's endorsement.

Some argue that Trump should not be interceding against members of his own party.

He should not be using his power to oust members of his own party.

They are missing the point.

Trump is powerless by himself in these situations.

The voters have all the power.

They were not happy that these incumbents did not support Trump or his agenda.

Trump has transformed the Republican party in the last 10 years since he entered politics in a way few  could have imagined was possible.

He did not do it himself.

Trump understood better than anyone that people were not looking to see "business as usual' in Washington.

However, Trump can only deliver a message. The muscle comes from people who vote.

Trump is like a General. He can put together a battle plan but it will only succeed if the soldiers carry out the plan.

Unlike many other countries, in the United States the people do not have not to just submit to their leaders. They have the power to do as they choose.

Those soldiers also do not have to fear being punished, court martialed or shot if they choose to not align with the plan

In the end, Trump will only succeed on the issues when the people have his back.

Trump may be the General but the voters are the King.

The loss of those who crossed Trump sends a message to all of the other Republicans.

Cross him and his agenda and you put your political future at risk.

The last month shows that Trump still has the support of the vast majority of Republicans.

However, a recent Fox News poll shows that Trump's overall approval among Republicans has dropped to 80% amid a slide with all voters to a new low of 36%.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-economic-pain-deepens-disapproval-trump-hits-new-high

Underlying that disapproval is 77% of all voters in that poll saying the economy is in bad shape.

That poll finding is supported by the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey that recently hit its lowest level ever.

I wrote in my last blog that no one should take the economic sentiments in those polls seriously.

They are not based on current economic reality.

The polls are really only measuring political sentiment.

There is little doubt that Trump has suffered as a result of the Iran conflict thus far.

Gas prices up. Inflation ticking up as a result.

The on again, off again messaging on whether there is a deal or no deal with Iran only creates further confusion and lack of confidence in voters.

The only saving grace for Trump right now is that voters in almost all polls view the Democrats just as unfavorably as the President.

Trump's overall net favorability according to the Real Clear Politics  composite average is -18.5% compared to -18.8% for Democrats. Republicans generally are -17.1%.

The voters do not view any politician favorably right now.

We also are almost six months from the midterm elections.

Six months is an eternity in politics.

A lot can happen between now and November.

The only thing that is certain is that people are sovereign in our system.

They will make the final call on the type of leaders they want whether or not they are the leaders they need.

The bigger question right now might be who wins if the voters are unhappy with all of their choices?

Consumer or Political Sentiment?

The University of Michigan has been conducting a Consumer Sentiment Index since 1966.

The Index of Consumer Expectations seeks to find how consumers view three things:

• Their own financial situation
• The short-term general economy
• The long-term general economy

The index is normalized with a value of 100 equal to the consumer sentiment in the first quarter of 1966 when the first survey of consumers was conducted.

I have followed the Consumer Sentiment Index for a number of years but recently I have begun questioning how much validity it has.

Is it truly measuring consumer sentiment or has it become nothing more than a tool that reflects back political sentiment from an increasingly divided body politic?

Consider the most recent release.

The Consumer Sentiment Index for May, 2026 is reported to be the lowest it has been in the 60 years it has been tracked with a value of 44.8.

Source: https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/

That is driven in large part by the consumer viewing current economic conditions as the worst it has been since 1966.

Source: https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/

Think about that.

That is lower than during any recession the last 60 years.

Lower than the 1979-1981 period when we had double digit inflation for three consecutive years.

Lower than the early 1980's when mortgage rates hit 18%.

Lower than the period between late 1982 and early 1983 when the employment rate was more than 10%.

Lower than when the entire economy was shut down with Covid.

Lower than in 2022 when inflation was running at over 8% per year.

Let's compare that with actual facts and data on the economy right now.

The unemployment rate is 4.3%.

It is one of the better unemployment numbers in the last 50 years.

The inflation rate is 3.8%.

It has increased over the last two month due to gas prices but it is still substantially lower than it was four years ago.

The national average price for a gallon of gas on this Memorial Day weekend is $4.50 per gallon.

Source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/charts

It was around $3.00 per gallon before the Iran conflict started.

However, gas prices surged to over 5.00 per gallon under Biden.

Prices were also $3.72 per gallon in 2012 under Obama.

As I pointed out in an earlier blog post, $3.72 per gallon adjusted for inflation would be $5.40 per gallon today.

We have a growing economy.

First quarter 2026 GDP increased from the last quarter of 2025.

It is also growing faster than almost the entire 2010-2020 period after we were coming out of the Great Recession.

There has not been a sustained recession (ignoring the self-inflicted Covid downturn) in the United States since 2009.

It is the longest period without a downturn in economic activity in United States history.

Consumer spending was up 0.9% in March and 0.6% in February.

Source: https://www.bea.gov/data/consumer-spending/main

Even including increased gas prices in April, consumer spending growth was strong according to a Bank of America analysis.

Source: https://institute.bankofamerica.com/economic-insights/consumer-checkpoint-may-2026.html

Source: https://institute.bankofamerica.com/content/dam/economic-insights/consumer-checkpoint-may-2026.pdf

Think about what you see around you on a daily basis.

Do any of you go to restaurants, malls, Costco, the airport and other places that are not crowded with people spending money?

Finally, the stock market is at record highs.

The S&P 500 is up 26% in the last 12 months and 9% year-to-date.

How could consumer sentiments in the index regarding economic conditions be so far removed from reality?

A lot of it is tied to political sentiment.

Democrats thought the economy was doing great during the Biden administration.

A 100 index score quickly has become a 37 under Trump.

Source: https://en.macromicro.me/charts/110440/us-michigan-consumer-current-index-within-political-party

At the same time, Republican voters gave economic conditions under a huge thumbs down under Biden which rebounded as soon as Trump was elected.

Notice how there has been a disparity in sentiment by party since political party association was first tracked by the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey beginning in 2017.

However, that disparity has gotten to be huge in the last three years.

The negative consumer sentiment also continues into expectations in the survey.

Consumer expectations for the future are also lower in the survey than at any time in the last 60 years other than the 1979-1981 period when we were in the midst of three consecutive years of double digit inflation and a recession on top of it---STAGFLATION.

The University of Michigan has taken note of the increased political divide in its consumer sentiment index but argues that the numbers are valid because the sentiment of political Independents in the index largely tracks polling of all consumers nationally in other surveys.

Source: https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/files/independents202605.pdf

However, this data is still at odds with the reality of facts and data of current economic conditions.

Who could really argue that economic conditions today are worse than when Covid shut down the economy in 2020 and 2021 or when we had 8% inflation in 2022?

Something else is at work here.

My guess is that consumer sentiment ends up being more a reflection of the narrative created in the mainstream and social media rather than actual facts on the ground

What have been some of those narratives since Trump took office again in January, 2025?

Trump's tariffs are going to cause inflation.

Trump's tariffs are going to wreck the economy.

AI is going to put everyone out of work.

Data centers to run AI are going to consume all U.S energy energy and result in huge utility rate increases.

The Mideast is going to end up in all out war due to Trump standing up to Iran and gas prices will go through the roof.

Who is most susceptible to headlines like these?

Independent voters who do not pay as much attention to the issues and the context around them.

All that being said, the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index findings right now should be a cautionary tale for all of us.

What have we become if sentiments and feelings override real facts?

What chance do we have if people ignore the reality that surrounds them but are willing to be manipulated by news headlines and social media?

Why can't we return to a point where we assess facts and make decisions based on the real world rather than our biased political leanings?

When political sentiments control anything and everything in a society you are on a slippery slope to a slow death.