[FoxNews] Gallup polling shows Congress holds just 9% public confidence as anti-establishment populism surges across party lines.
After every recent election in which a democratic socialist or self-described progressive outsider scores an upset victory, the same debate erupts: Is America really moving that far to the left?
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s rise in New York reignited the question. Before his campaign collapsed, Graham Platner’s meteoric rise in Maine sparked similar headlines. And now, as Democrats look to replace him, many are rallying around Troy Jackson, a self-described "pickup truck progressive."
The conventional wisdom is that these victories signal a country embracing increasingly liberal ideas.
I don’t think that’s what’s happening.
The rise of democratic socialism isn’t the story.
It’s the symptom.
The real story is that millions of Americans have lost confidence in the institutions they once trusted to solve problems, create opportunity and make government work. And when confidence in institutions collapses, voters don’t necessarily move left or right. They become far more willing to embrace candidates who promise to disrupt the status quo.
Gallup’s latest polling should be a flashing warning light. Confidence in America’s institutions remains near historic lows. Congress commands the confidence of just 9% of Americans. Confidence in the criminal justice system, organized religion, higher education, big business and many other institutions Americans once relied upon has eroded dramatically over the past generation.
Look beyond the individual numbers and a striking pattern emerges.
This isn’t a crisis in one institution.
It’s a crisis of confidence in the entire system.
That’s an important distinction because politics doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Voters don’t evaluate candidates based solely on policy positions. They also evaluate whether the institutions surrounding those policies are capable of delivering results.
When Americans stop believing those institutions work, they stop rewarding candidates who promise incremental change.
They start looking for alternatives.
Some find them on the right.
Some find them on the left.
But almost all of them are looking for outsiders.
That’s what made Platner’s campaign so compelling before it unraveled. His appeal wasn’t simply about progressive policy. He represented a rejection of politics as usual. His outsider status became part of his message.
The same is true of Mamdani.
Whether you agree with his policies or not, his supporters aren’t simply voting for a platform. They’re voting for disruption. They’re voting against institutions they believe have failed them.
And look at what happened in Maine after Platner exited the race.
Many Democrats didn’t immediately search for the safest establishment replacement. Instead, attention quickly shifted to Jackson — a candidate who proudly brands himself a "pickup truck progressive" and who has built his career positioning himself as a champion of working people against entrenched interests.
Different state.
Different ideology.
The same political demand.
We’re seeing versions of this story play out across the country.
Candidates who promise to challenge institutions are outperforming candidates who promise simply to manage them.
The labels vary.
The frustration does not.
This is why I believe we continue to misread this political moment.
The defining divide in American politics is no longer simply Democrat versus Republican.
Nor is it liberal versus conservative.
Increasingly, it is establishment versus anti-establishment.
Institution versus outsider.
The rise of democratic socialism is one manifestation of that shift.
Right-wing populism is another.
They are different political expressions of the same underlying condition: millions of Americans no longer believe the institutions around them are capable of solving the problems they face.
That should concern all of us.
A healthy democracy depends on citizens believing that its institutions — while imperfect — are fundamentally legitimate and capable of correcting mistakes, enforcing rules fairly and delivering results.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Mikhail Kolovangin
[REGNUM] The UK is once again replacing its head of government without a general election. This procedure has become commonplace in the country over the past decade. Andy Burnham became leader of the Labour Party on 17 July 2026, and officially entered 10 Downing Street on 20 July, becoming the seventh Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in ten years.
The event ends months of internal Labour party crisis, which began after the party's disastrous May 2026 local elections and intensified against the backdrop of the growing popularity of Nigel Farage's right-wing Reform Party.
TO APPEASE THE TIRED
Burnham's first speech as prime minister was short, but demonstrably measured in tone and signalling.
Instead of a classic victory speech, he opted for a mixture of acknowledgement of responsibility and cautious idealism, clearly trying to speak to an audience tired of big promises.
The politician outlined three key timelines. First, ending street vagrancy and eliminating the situation where people are forced to sleep on the streets.
Secondly, he promises to begin announcing measures to combat rising living costs as early as tomorrow. Thirdly, in the long term, he must present a ten-year plan for Britain to demonstrate the country's leadership has a vision for development through the mid-2030s.
A separate section of the speech is devoted to the redistribution of power within the state. Burnham intends to "pull power out of Whitehall"—that is, to ensure that decisions are not concentrated solely in central government departments, but rather reach the regions and municipalities.
Finally, Burnham outlined a broad socio-economic package that should form the basis for future policy: helping young people find work, expanding mental health support, building large-scale council housing, cutting benefits while respecting budget rules, and delivering on defence spending promises.
This list demonstrates his attempt to balance between the welfare state and fiscal discipline: on the one hand, a more active role for the state in addressing housing, employment, and health issues, on the other, a commitment not to break financial limits or reduce Britain's defense commitments to its allies.
WHO IS ANDY BURNHAM?
The politician was born in 1970 in Liverpool. He studied English literature at Cambridge, began his career in journalism, and entered politics in the early 2000s. He first became an MP in 2001 and held ministerial posts in Gordon Brown's government.
He unsuccessfully ran for the leadership of the Labour Party twice, in 2010 and 2015, before leaving Westminster in 2017 and being elected Mayor of Greater Manchester, a post he held until recently.
It was his position as mayor of Manchester that made Burnham a national figure, championing reform of the region's transport system and positioning himself as the leading voice of the north of England against London-centric policies.
Since party rules stipulate that only a sitting MP can run for leadership, Burnham had to wait for a seat to become available in a friendly constituency – something Makerfield MP Josh Symons did by resigning to run for the by-election.
Burnham won the vote on June 18, 2026, decisively, taking nearly 55% of the vote to Reform Party candidate Robert Kenyon's 35%. This victory was seen as a decisive signal: Labour MPs saw Burnham as the only politician capable of halting Farage's advance.
RACE FOR LEADERSHIP
Burnham's main potential competitor was considered to be former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who left Starmer's cabinet with a sharp statement back in May.
The politician maintained a long-standing intrigue, collecting signatures from deputies for his own nomination, and, according to those close to him, he actually had the necessary support of 81 deputies to launch a formal race.
However, on June 22, the day Starmer's resignation was announced, Streeting unexpectedly withdrew his nomination and publicly endorsed Burnham, effectively ensuring his "coronation" without any real competition.
In his statement, Streeting wrote that the victory in Makerfield was "a victory for unity and hope over division and hatred" and that he was convinced Burnham could build a truly great party.
The decision dramatically changed the landscape: by the time nominations closed, Burnham already had the support of more than 200 of the 403 Labour MPs – more than half the parliamentary group – and none of his rivals had managed to gather the necessary 81 signatures to launch a contest.
As a result, on July 17, Burnham became the party leader without any real election, which caused discontent among some rank-and-file members who criticized the lack of internal party democracy.
It is significant that the "defector" from Starmer's inner circle in this case turned out to be not an ordinary associate, but one of the main "pretenders to the throne," who, back in February 2026, publicly swore allegiance to the current prime minister, calling his leadership a model of integrity.
By May, his supporters had begun to form a parallel campaign, and by June he had fully defected to Burnham's camp.
IMMEDIATE CIRCLE
Burnham is renowned for his close circle of trusted people, with whom he worked during his time as mayor of Manchester.
A key figure in his team was James Purnell, a former minister in Brown's government and a long-time associate of Burnham, who was appointed chief of staff at Downing Street.
Along with Purnell, the inner circle of people privy to the details of the cabinet formation included Louise Hay, the former transport minister who resigned due to a history of fraud, but remains one of Burnham's closest allies.
Burnham kept the composition of his cabinet within a very narrow circle - in fact, only Hay and Purnell were aware of it, which underlines the closed, almost family-like nature of his team.
Other Manchester associates who could be appointed include Miatta Fahnbulleh and Anneliese Midgley, both of whom have long had personal ties to Burnham.
Graham Cook has also been named as the new head of Downing Street's political bloc, which is seen as a signal that the Prime Minister intends to exert strict control over the formation of policy himself, rather than handing over this function to ministers.
BATTLE FOR THE POST OF CHANCELLOR
The most tense and revealing battle for the balance of power in the new cabinet was the dispute over the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer—the second-highest position in the government. For several weeks, a veritable briefing war raged between supporters of the current Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.
Miliband's supporters argued that he was the only candidate capable of challenging "Treasury orthodoxy" while sharing the prime minister's views on economic reform.
However, big business and some trade unions expressed concern about his possible appointment, fearing market destabilization.
The pound strengthened, and 10-year government bond yields fell by 0.06 percentage points after reports that Mahmood had emerged as the front-runner. Burnham's close ally, Louise Hay, also expressed doubts about Miliband's candidacy.
By mid-July, most insiders agreed that Mahmood would become chancellor and Miliband would be transferred to the Foreign Office, possibly with the additional status of first secretary of state, which is effectively equivalent to the position of deputy prime minister.
Streeting is seen in this scenario as a likely successor to Mahmood as interior minister – despite his reputation as a right-wing politician, he is seen as softer on immigration issues than Mahmood.
THE NEW PRIME MINISTER'S PLAN
Burnham takes office with a fairly clear left-of-center agenda: more public control over basic services, a focus on the cost of living, and a major turnaround in housing policy.
In the energy and utilities sectors, he intends to strengthen the state's role in managing key areas—from water to electricity. The country's largest water company, Thames Water, is effectively preparing for a special administration regime until a new owner is found. Meanwhile, measures are being discussed that could reduce energy bills by approximately £130 per year and make operating a heat pump cheaper than a gas boiler by redistributing tax and policy surcharges in tariffs.
At the same time, Burnham is prepared to confront the climate wing when it comes to fossil fuel production. His team is exploring workarounds in the North Sea—connecting new wells to existing facilities without formally violating the previous promise not to issue new exploration licenses.
At the same time, he supports a tougher immigration agenda, leaving in place Mahmood's initiatives to reform the system and reiterating that overall migration must decline, even if this causes divisions within Labour.
His vision of the digital state is also changing. Burnham is ready to bury Starmer's BritCard digital IDs for the sake of a "reset of priorities," redirecting resources from the big project to helping people suffering from rising prices.
At the same time, he plans to radically restructure the technology management architecture: instead of a separate department of science, innovation, and technology, he will create a strengthened department, within which, for the first time, a separate minister for artificial intelligence will be appointed.
In this way, he's attempting to combine the image of a pro-business leader with control over basic infrastructure and stricter social and immigration regulations. Moreover, the abolition of digital ID cards is an attempt to capitalize on the electorate's discontent with the highly toxic topic of increased digital control. Of course, this doesn't mean the initiative won't be implemented later.
In terms of housing policy, he promises the largest municipal housing construction program since the postwar era. For him, this is not only a matter of social justice but also an attempt to stop the budget-destroying transfer of enormous sums from state housing support to private landlords.
LAST CHANCE
Burnham's speech today followed Starmer's farewell speech.
The former prime minister sought to emphasize that his departure was a "responsible step" at a time when the country needed a new impetus and a new face. The speech echoed familiar themes: service to the country, gratitude to the team, and confidence that the Labour Party, with its new leadership, could still deliver on its promises to voters.
At the same time, Starmer's main "historical achievement" has become more of a subject of irony: under him, Westminster has become the most homosexual* parliament in the world (something he recently declared with sincere pride ), and in terms of the number of scandals, internal intrigues and other showdowns, it more closely resembles a theater.
And the change of prime minister looks more like an attempt to simply reset the atmosphere within the country than a real change of course.
Burnham comes in with rhetoric about "massive change," but his key domestic policy moves are mostly about unpacking long-overdue decisions under a new brand.
A little more public oversight over infrastructure, the symbolic abolition of digital IDs, promises to build a record amount of municipal housing and reform the technology sector—all of this is intended to demonstrate concern for the population, alleviate voter irritation, and create the feeling that the state is returning to the basic needs of ordinary people.
Against this backdrop, Burnham's rise to power looks like Labour's last serious chance to seize the initiative and salvage its ratings before the next parliamentary elections.
If promises to "reset priorities" remain just a collection of beautiful phrases without tangible results on the cost of living, voters will very quickly perceive the change of prime minister as a purely cosmetic reshuffle at the top.
In such a case, the party risks entering the campaign not simply out of fatigue with the government, but with a general feeling that the Labour project has been exhausted.
“See? We in Labour are not Jew-haters! We just hate Zionists, and religious Jews, and Jews who aren’t socialists, and…”
[IsraelTimes] New UK PM Burnham shakes up cabinet, purging Starmer loyalists, signaling tack to left; Miliband led party from 2010 to 2015, when he lost election; criticized Israel’s Gaza policy
That would go a very long way in the UK and here as well. Sadly, there appears to be only one man interested in creating economic hope and some level of prosperity for the voter.
#3
He has been installed to continue the same failed policies that have acted like a meth addiction on the English people. He will fail to the surprise of no one.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/21/2026 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Blah, blah, blah. What's he have to worry about? They've disarmed the population outside of Northern Ireland. The King isn't going to dismiss Parliament for new elections.
If I understood her correctly: she's saying that Vance is trying for Republican defeat in midterms - certain to be followed by impeachment - because it's his only chance at Presidency. That is, she believes, he has zero chance of winning 2028 primaries.
[AmericanThinker] Lee Smith, who is, I believe, one of conservativism’s more informed and brilliant political analysts, has a very interesting take on JD Vance’s political trajectory: Vance is invested more in self-advancement than he is in political principles.
What this means is that when Vance sustains an ego attack—in this case, with his failed Memorandum of Understanding—he will deflect blame on those whom he dislikes: In this case, Jews and, to a lesser extent, Trump, whom he may feel let him down.
Smith’s essay, "JD Vance’s Big Crashout," focuses on Vance’s bizarre appearance on the Joe Rogan show. There, Vance articulated Tucker Carlson-esque anti-Israel conspiracy theories and managed to suggest that Trump might indeed have been embroiled in Jeffrey Epstein’s sordid world. With this springboard, Smith examines Vance’s rise and predicts that the seeds of his fall may already be planted.
As a predicate to Vance’s appearance on Rogan, Smith notes that, because Trump is only a four-year president, any Republican who wants career advancement in the Trump administration isn’t going to be cozying up to Trump. Vance is the presumptive future leader of the party, and D.C. operatives will circle the wagons to protect him, including denying that the Rogan appearance was anything other than normal.
In fact, it was a bizarre event:
Instead of advancing the administration’s agenda on Capitol Hill, the vice president went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to promote his new memoir. Like Barack Obama, Vance sees his personal story as a springboard to the White House. And like Obama, he has already written two memoirs by the age of 45 without a single legislative or practical political accomplishment of any kind aside from being elected to public office.
During his grievance-fueled performance on Rogan’s podcast, Vance lashed out once again at the Jews, alleging, among other things, that there’s an Israeli-funded plot to undermine his negotiations with Iran; some Israelis want war indefinitely for the sake of endless war; and the U.S. government has probably destroyed evidence that Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad operative.
Regarding the Epstein matter, Smith notes Vance’s careful phrasing:
And "by the way," he wanted to make clear, "I’ve never seen a single piece of credible evidence that the president of the United States engaged in wrongdoing with minors."
That’s odd wording for a man who is considered a master of the English language, insofar as it clearly leaves open the possibility that Trump did behave wrongly. That’s not accidental, writes Smith:
Why did the vice president tailor his wording to suggest that maybe his boss engaged in wrongdoing with minors? For the same reason that he attacked Jews and spread baseless rumors, for which he admits to having zero evidence, about some kind of dark plot involving Jeffrey Epstein. Now that the Iran deal that Vance favored has blown up and he’s taking heat for it, he’s showing that no one puts baby in a corner. So, he resurrects Epsteingate, predictably inspiring the dumbest people in America, and around the world, to flood social media with details from an information operation targeting Trump.
It’s Russiagate 2.0...a way to deflect attention from his own failed foray in the world of international diplomacy. IMO: If he was buying a carpet from them, he'd pay a million dollars for an historic Isfahan carpet from the Shah's palace - and later discover "made in China" on a discrete label.
Moreover, it manages to tie together sex, anti-Trumpism, Israel, and antisemitism:
The idea the Jewish financier pimped out underage American girls to compromise liberal elites for the purpose of advancing Israeli interests was most ardently promoted by Vance’s political patron, Tucker Carlson.
And here’s a little interesting tidbit, complete from a leftist-authored book about President Trump’s first year in term two:
According to Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan’s recent book, Regime Change, chronicling the first year of the second Trump term, Vance had originally volunteered to appear on Rogan’s podcast to put down the speculation that Trump was protecting Epstein after the narrative threatened to derail Trump 47. But now he’s mad at Trump, so the second-highest elected official in the country, described by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles as a conspiracy theorist, chummed the part of the American electorate that believes a key role of the U.S. government is to disclose the nature of the laser technology gifted to us by aliens and publish Elvis’ current coordinates in the jungles of the Amazon.
Moreover, Vance knows whose fault it is that his misbegotten deal failed: The Jews. His evidence? A Time Magazine article.
When attacked for antisemitism, Vance naturally goes on the offensive, saying that no one can prove it. Smith dismisses this:
But claiming that Israelis want war for the sake of war, indefinitely, toward no specific objective, is a pretty good place to start. Vance’s denials are part of the act: I didn’t say something recognizably antisemitic; it’s on you to prove that the classic antisemitic conceit I used is antisemitic, you paranoid freak. My point is clearly just that Israelis simply kill people for no reason or purpose because they enjoy spilling blood, and they will continue doing so forever, to satisfy their perverted, inhuman lusts.
Smith has a few other choice words for Vance, whom he sees as someone willing to blow everything up to protect his own ego.
But at the end of the day, this isn’t about Vance. It’s about whether Trump can salvage America in the short time he has left:
If he can’t get the job done, which includes disciplining his number two, odds are ever increasing that in two and a half years, millions of illegal aliens will be gathered at our southern border, waiting for the next far-left Democrat to be sworn in.
Unfortunately, his Vice President isn’t helping Trump but, instead, seems determined to undermine him every step of the way.
As for me, I’ve always liked Ron DeSantis, and I’m now adding Marco Rubio to my top presidential contenders list. I’d love to see an All Florida ticket in 2028.
#3
Obama, Soetoro, Brennan creation or whomever he is, sees everything through the prism of race. He possesses no complementary word for anyone, except himself. Humility eludes him at every turn.
#5
The moment Trump is out Brennan and all the deep state get their security clearances and old jobs back. Not surprising they want to advance this date as much as possible.
Don't watch what Vance says, watch what he does. He can go on Rogan and talk shit all he wants, as long as the war goes on that's all that matters.
#6
Is Rantburg familiar with Rockbridge Network?
Have you read their views on Aristocracy?
Is that what we mean by Govt Capture?
The Rockbridge Theory of Aristo-populism
The group's intellectual blueprint bridges extreme wealth with working-class politics through a philosophy known as aristo-populism. This framework is heavily influenced by post-liberal thinkers like Patrick Deneen and tech-monarchist philosophers like Curtis Yarvin.
Productive Elite vs. Oligarchy: Group head Chris Buskirk argues that every society is inevitably ruled by an elite class. The goal of Rockbridge is to replace what they view as a corrupt, "extractive" liberal oligarchy with a "productive elite"—a self-conscious aristocracy (aristoi). Ruling for the Masses: Under this theory, this new tech and corporate aristocracy acts as "class traitors". Instead of ruling for globalist interests, they align with the populist working class to reindustrialize America and protect traditional values. CEO-Style Governance: Critics and political analysts point out that this philosophy heavily aligns with Silicon Valley authoritarianism. It views traditional democracy as inefficient, advocating instead for national governance that mirrors a tightly controlled, venture-backed startup.
[OANN] In the war with Iran, we are now entering the Twilight Zone of sorts.
Ran Zimmit a director at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies has some insight into this hazy, confusing and uncomfortable period where we seem to be facing neither war nor peace.
Writing in the Jewish outlet Ynet, Zimmit states that we face a world of "not full-scale war, but also not a long-term diplomatic arrangement."
I agree with Zimmit. His description perfectly fits the confusing world we face.
Posted by: Besoeker ||
07/21/2026 07:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[469 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
this is opinion of Richard Pollock.
He is in favor of taking Kharg.
Frankly, given that we have a naval blockage, I don't see what purpose taking Kharg would do.
Pollock, I think, downplays the problem of force protection also. We would have thousands of troops on the island and IRGC still has many, many short range drones, not to mention heavier missiles.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
07/21/2026 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
@2 IIRC some 90% of Iran's oil goes through Kharg Island. Taking the island would cut off all that oil, which would Iran from exporting oil by land and probably bring most of the IRGC's armed forces to a stop.
I don't think it's worth the casualties we would suffer to take the island. Even IF the IRGC agreed to comply with our demands in the short term it would just be kicking the bucket down the road for the next president. The plan MAY be to destroy so much of the IRGC needs that an internal revolution occurs and all of the IRGC die, making Iran a better place.
#3
One has to ask, doesn't all of te Kharg Island oil come from pipelines from the mainland. Pipelines tens of miles inland that can be safely cut by aircraft or brief spec-ops forces inserts, without the cprotection worries, but essentially rendering the oil export business neutered.
#4
@3 Possibly, it would depend on how many pipelines there are, how many are buried underground or otherwise unreachable. There also negative environmental and worldwide economic issues related to destroying enough pipelines on the mainland to bring the oil flow to a trickle or stop.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
