There is a presidential election coming in 2028.
You may think that sounds premature. It isn’t.
The race doesn’t begin when candidates announce. It begins when alliances form, when donors make quiet commitments, and when organizations decide who will be lifted up — and who will quietly be squeezed out.
I watched Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak in Munich last week. It was a strong speech. Confident. Clear. Grounded in America’s historic alliance with Western Europe. He looked like a man comfortable on the world stage. A man wanting to prove he belongs on the world stage.
And I found myself asking a larger question.
When Donald Trump leaves the stage, who stands there next — and who stands behind them?
For the first time in a long time, the Republican Party has a deep bench. JD Vance. Marco Rubio. Glenn Youngkin. Vivek Ramaswamy. Each brings talent. Each brings ambition. Each brings potential.
But potential is not the same thing as independence.
Donald Trump disrupted something in 2016. Whatever one thinks of his style, he walked into politics with his own resources and his own agenda. The traditional donor class did not build him. They did not fund him into existence. In many ways, they were left on the outside looking in.
And that sent a message.
For decades, Americans have watched candidates promise reform and then govern with altogether different priorities. Priorities influenced by the financial ecosystem that carried them to power. Large donors write large checks. Large donors expect access. Access brings influence. Influence brings policy.
That pattern is not new. It is woven into modern politics.
Trump challenged that pattern. Not perfectly. Not without resistance. But he challenged it.
The question now is whether that disruption becomes the new normal — or whether it was simply an exception.
Will the Republican Party allow a fully contested primary in 2028? Or will organizations and power brokers quietly consolidate behind one heir apparent before voters have truly weighed their options?
We have seen what happens when parties bypass robust primaries. Voters notice. Voters resent it. And often, voters respond.
I like JD Vance. I respect Marco Rubio. I admire Glenn Youngkin’s record in Virginia. Vivek Ramaswamy has undeniable energy. But admiration is not the issue.
The issue is allegiance.
If America First was more than a slogan — if it was a governing philosophy — then who carries it forward? And can they carry it forward without becoming indebted to the very structures that resisted it?
Because here is what many Americans understand instinctively: money in politics is never neutral.
Campaigns are expensive. Media is expensive. National organization is expensive. Unless a candidate arrives with extraordinary personal wealth, they must raise funds. And when funds are raised, relationships are formed. When relationships are formed, expectations follow.
That is not cynicism. That is reality.
For years, many of us have spoken about what is often called the “deep state” — the permanent bureaucracy, the consultant class, the professional political operatives who remain while elected officials come and go. Those structures do not disappear. They adapt. They wait.
And they prefer predictability.
Disruptors are tolerated only temporarily. Systems prefer stability. Systems prefer familiarity. Systems prefer candidates who understand how things are “supposed” to work.
So I ask again:
When Donald Trump exits the stage, does the system quietly reset?
Will the next president be chosen by voters — or shaped long before by donors, consultants, and institutional power?
These are not accusations. They are questions. And they are questions worth asking early.
The 2028 election will not simply be about personality. It will not simply be about messaging. It will be about whether the political and financial architecture that defined Washington for decades reasserts itself fully.
If the Republican Party believes in competition, then let there be competition. Let the candidates debate. Let them challenge each other. Let them prove not only their talent, but their independence.
Because voters are not naïve.
They know that campaign money flows somewhere. They know that influence follows money. And they know that governing courage is rare.
Donald Trump was, in many ways, an anomaly. The exception. The disruption.
The next election will tell us whether that disruption changed the system — or whether the system was merely waiting its turn.
Who will lead?
More importantly — who will own the leader?
Answering that question begins now.
No Loss for Words 
The Freedom to Stand for Something
by Steve DanaTHERE IS A QUIET SHIFT TAKING PLACE IN OUR COUNTRY
It doesn’t arrive with headlines or breaking news. It doesn’t come with sirens or speeches. It shows up in smaller ways—in how we speak to one another, in how we honor our commitments, in how we think about right and wrong.
It shows up in what we are willing to tolerate. And perhaps more importantly… in what we are no longer willing to stand for.
So let me ask a simple question. “What happens to a free society when its people no longer believe in the value of self-restraint?”
A SYSTEM BUILT ON CHARACTER
When the founders designed this country, they did something remarkable. They created a system of government built not on control, but on trust. But that trust was not blind. It rested on an assumption—one so obvious to them they didn’t feel the need to spell it out in detail. They assumed the people would be guided by a moral compass.
Not because the government forced them to be. But because they believed it was the right way to live.
They had seen the alternative. They understood that when people cannot govern themselves, someone else eventually steps in to do it for them. And that someone else is rarely gentle.
NO STATE RELIGION… BUT NOT A MORAL VACUUM
There is something else the founders understood, and it is often misunderstood today. They rejected the idea of a state religion. But they did not reject the importance of religion itself. In fact, they believed just the opposite.
They believed faith—particularly the moral teachings that had shaped their culture—was too important to be controlled by government. So, they made a deliberate choice: They would separate church from state… But they would not separate morality from society.
They assumed that the ethical framework shaped largely by the Christian tradition would continue to live in the people—in their homes, in their communities, and in their daily decisions. Government would not enforce it. The people would carry it.
That was the design.
FREEDOM REQUIRES SOMETHING FROM US
We like to talk about freedom as if it is something we possess. Something we inherited. Something we can hold onto simply by defending it from outside threats. But freedom is not self-sustaining. It requires something from us. It requires discipline. It requires restraint. It requires millions of quiet decisions made every day by ordinary people:
These are not acts of government. They are acts of character. And without them, no system—no matter how well designed—can endure.
THE DRIFT WE ARE EXPERIENCING
Today, we are watching what happens when that foundation begins to weaken. We are more connected than ever before, yet we trust each other less. We have more laws than any generation in history, yet compliance feels increasingly optional. We talk constantly about rights, but far less about responsibility. And when something goes wrong, we are more likely to ask: “Can I get away with it?” Rather than: “Is it right?”
That is not a small shift. It is a fundamental one. Because when internal restraint declines, external control begins to rise.
Not because it is desired—but because something must replace what has been lost.
THE WRONG CONVERSATION
In times like these, we are tempted to look outward. To blame institutions. To blame leaders. To blame other cultures or belief systems.
And while there are certainly real challenges in the world around us, that is not where this story begins. A society does not lose its moral footing because of outsiders. It loses it when those inside no longer believe in what they once stood for. That is the harder truth. And it is the one we must face if we are serious about preserving what we have been given.
STANDING FOR SOMETHING – NOT JUST AGAINST SOMETHING
We are very good these days at telling each other what we oppose. We argue. We criticize. We dismantle. But we are less certain about what we are building. And that is where the danger lies. Because if we do not stand for something positive, something enduring, something rooted in principle, something else will fill the void. Something louder. Something more rigid. Something less forgiving.
History has shown us that again and again.
EDUCATION: WHERE THE FUTURE IS DECIDED
If a moral and ethical society is not enforced by government… then where does it come from? The answer is simple. It is taught. It is passed down. It is reinforced over time.
And that makes education—not just schooling, but education in the broadest sense, the most important institution in a free society. Because every generation must be taught what the previous generation believed. Not forced. Not coerced. But taught.
We do not need to hand every child a Bible and require belief. That was never the model. But we do need to teach the lessons that sustained a free people:
These are not just religious ideas. They are civilizational ones. And if we stop teaching them, we should not be surprised when they disappear.
A SOCIETY THAT TEACHES NOTHING, STANDS FOR NOTHING
We have, in many ways, stepped back from teaching moral clarity. Partly out of a desire to avoid offense. Partly out of a belief that values should be entirely personal. But the result is not neutrality, it is confusion. And confusion does not build strong societies. It weakens them.
Because when young people are not given a framework for understanding right and wrong, they will live in a value-free world. They will adopt whatever framework is loudest, most persuasive, or most convenient. And that framework may not support the kind of society we hope to sustain.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONTROL
Let’s be clear about something. Teaching moral and ethical behavior is not about control. It is not about forcing belief. It is not about placing a burden on the individual. It is about preserving the very thing that makes freedom possible.
Because when people choose to live by a moral code, they reduce the need for external control. They make room for freedom. They create trust. They build stability.
That is not oppression. That is the foundation of a healthy society.
THE CHOICE BEFORE US
We are at a point in time where we have a choice. We can continue down the path of moral uncertainty, where everything is negotiable and nothing is anchored. Or we can make a conscious decision to stand for something.
To teach it. To model it. To live it.
Not because we are forced to. But because we believe it is right.
THE STANDARD WE SET
In the end, the question is not whether our system still works. It is whether we are willing to meet the standard it requires. A moral and ethical society cannot be legislated into existence. It must be chosen. Individually. Daily. Imperfectly, Yes—but sincerely.
AND THAT IS THE REAL TEST
We can debate policy. We can argue about culture. We can analyze trends and point to problems. But none of it will matter if we lose sight of the foundation beneath it all. A free society does not survive because it is protected. It survives because it is practiced, every day. By people who understand that freedom is not the absence of restraint… But the ability to choose what is right.
Posted in Education, Political commentary, religion | Leave a Comment »