It’s clear the American people are looking for new options in the 2024 presidential race. If there’s a Trump-Biden rematch, 64% of American voters would feel like the political system is broken, according to a recent CBS News/YouGov poll. A News Nation poll from June found that 49% of voters would consider a third-party candidate if Trump and Biden are once again the major-party nominees. 

There is a massive effort underway to give voters that third option through “No Labels,” a group led in part by former Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and former Gov. Larry Hogan, R-Md.

The group aims to welcome people who feel politically homeless and who are tired of extremes on the left and right. 

Ryan Clancy, No Labels’ chief strategist, spoke with Straight Arrow News’ Ray Bogan about the group’s efforts as it considers whether to enter a candidate in the race. 

Bogan: No Labels wants to get on the ballot in all 50 states. How is that going? 

Clancy: Great. I mean, we’ve been at this for over a year and a half. Eight-hundred thousand signatures that we’ve gathered. We’re on the ballot in 11 states now — and that’s about as many as you can be on. Interestingly enough, some states don’t even let you get started until next year. So anytime a state opens up, we’re in there working to get on the ballot and feel very good about our prospects for getting on all 50 and D.C. by next year.

Bogan: No Labels says it wants to be the insurance policy for 2024. Your strategy says, “We are preparing for the possibility of nominating a candidate. We have not yet committed to do so. We will run ONLY under the proper environmental conditions.” What are the proper environmental conditions? 

Clancy: Basically, there’s got to be an opening. We’ve said from the very start we have no interest in fueling any kind of protest or spoiler effort. This is only worth doing if it looks like there’s an actual path to victory. And there’s a lot of reasons today to suggest there is.

You cited the polls at the top about Americans dissatisfaction with the choices they’re likely to get in 2024. But we’ve of course done our own polling and research, the latest of which found 63% said they’d be open to voting for a moderate independent candidate if it were Trump and Biden.

You just don’t see numbers like this. Anybody who says, “Well, this time is different, Americans are usually kind of unhappy with their choices.” This time is different. We really have never seen this level of dissatisfaction and this level of openness to an alternative.

Bogan: People like to speculate as to who the No Labels candidate would take more votes away from, Joe Biden or Donald Trump. How does a third party avoid being a spoiler? 

Clancy: Well, first, we got to agree on what a spoiler is. And to me a spoiler is, one, a candidate that can’t win. And two, it’s a candidate that whatever votes they do take, they take disproportionately from one party.

So you think about somebody like a Ralph Nader in 2000, who got only 2.5% of the vote, most of those votes probably would have went to Al Gore. Jill Stein in 2016 same deal, 1%, most of those votes probably would have went to Hillary Clinton.

But No Labels will never put up a ticket that looks like that. By definition, we would be putting forth a ticket that has a broad appeal to Americans across the political spectrum. And that’s why the polling and modeling we’ve done thus far shows no labels ticket pulling pretty evenly from both sides.

Bogan: Do you think that waiting so long to get a candidate in could ultimately hurt you in the long run? All the other major party candidates are all out there campaigning right now.

Clancy: I don’t think so. I mean, one of the things that is interesting is we of course have the permanent campaign in America. But being out there more, for more time, doesn’t necessarily accrue to the benefit of candidates. Sometimes they get a little stale over time. So, we’re going to have a convention in April of 2024 in Dallas, Texas. That’s the latest date in which we put up a ticket. And if we do, that still gives them a good seven months to go make their case to the American public.

Bogan: Is it more important for the No Labels party to come up with new ideas? Or promote the best ideas that are already out there, or more moderate or compromised versions of what’s already out there? 

Clancy: Well, it’s a little bit of both. In July, we actually released our commonsense policy booklet, people can find it at Commonsensemajority.org. And this was based on our years’ worth of research and polling to see what the public really cares about. And what you’ll find in this booklet is 30 ideas that we think you could fairly say characterizes — this is where most Americans want to go on most issues. And if a unity ticket were to come along, we certainly don’t expect that they’d pick up every idea in this booklet, but that would be a great starting point.

Bogan: The CBS News-YouGov poll I mentioned earlier found that 51% of Biden voters say their vote is to oppose Trump, while 39% of Trump voters say they’re vote is to oppose Joe Biden. The protest vote numbers were worse for the 2016 election Trump v. Clinton. If people are this unhappy with their candidates, why do you think more hasn’t been done to grow roots at the local and state level?  

Clancy: Well, one thing to be clear, No Labels isn’t a political party. We’re what’s called a 501C4 organization, we’re just working to get on the ballot. But I do think generally speaking, you see a growing appetite for something different from American voters. It is so obvious. And I think one of the mistakes that both parties are making is, you think about that number you put up earlier, 60% plus, they think it was a failure if we had a rematch of 2020.

If we had a functioning political system, the parties would adjust to that and they would give the public something they actually want. I think the problem we’re in now is that on some level both parties don’t even think they need to give us good choices anymore. They just figure in the end, you’ll hate and fear the person on the other side more and you’ll come home and vote for us. That’s part of the reason why there’s such an opening for, and an appetite for, what No Labels might be offering.

Bogan: Gallup had a poll that came out earlier this year that showed 41% of Americans identify as political independents. In the 31 states that report voters’ party affiliations — 38% are Democrats, 29% are Republicans and 28% are independents. People say how can a third-party candidate ever get enough support, but with that statistic in mind, why isn’t there a major independent candidate more often?

Clancy: Well, interestingly enough, that Gallup finding you cited, it was 41% earlier in the year, the latest reading on that is 47%. And interestingly enough, if you go back 30 years ago, when Ross Perot ran, that was the last time there was really a serious third alternative in the race. Only about 32-33% of Americans considered themselves as Independents at that time.

So you see this vast expansion in the universe of people who don’t want to affiliate themselves with the major parties, you see their dissatisfaction with the likely presidential nominees they’re gonna get. And then of course, you just have the broader attitude in the country where you look at things where people say, you know, only 16% of people trust the federal government to do the right thing. That’s the lowest reading and 70 years.

Seventy-eight percent of the public doesn’t think their kids are going to be better off than they are. That’s the worst reading in 40 years. And so there’s so much out there to suggest that the public is desperate for something different. In a lot of ways it shouldn’t surprise anybody that there’s this level of support for a No Labels offering, given the broader attitudes we’re seeing in the country and the dissatisfaction they have with our political system.

Bogan: Recently it was reported that Mitt Romney has been considering forming a new party that wouldn’t have its own candidate. He was quoted as saying, “This party’s going to endorse whichever party’s nominee isn’t stupid.” What do you make of the strategy of seeking to promote a candidate that is already running rather than entering your own candidate? 

Clancy: You know, that’s actually the first I’ve heard of that. I mean, I had heard he retired last week. But look, you do see a lot of, in any marketplace, when there’s an opening, you see a lot of people come in and try to fill that.

So you saw last year, that the Forward Party, that is a new political party that’s trying to be created from the ground up. Obviously, Senator Romney’s looking to create something there. I mean, that famous saying that, you know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I think that’s how Americans feel about our politics right now. They know if we have a repeat of this election, it is not going to solve the underlying divisions that we have in the country. And it is not going to let us tackle the problems that desperately need solving. You think about our immigration system, you think about our budget situation, that is only going to get solved with Republicans and Democrats at the table working together. And that’s why No Labels ultimately is considering putting this offer on the table early next year.

Artificial intelligence hit the mainstream like a firestorm following the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Technology companies scrambled to join the AI arms race, led by Microsoft’s $10 billion investment in OpenAI. At the same time, Capitol Hill sprang into action, holding hearing after hearing over safety and regulation.

The overnight sensation of generative AI is not likely to burn out as quickly as it came on. The endless possibilities are expected to transform technology, the workforce and society at large. At this pivotal juncture, humans will shape where artificial intelligence goes from here, but many fear the direction it will take.

AI expert Aleksandra Przegalińska joins Straight Arrow News from Warsaw, Poland, for an in-depth conversation about the future of AI, from job replacement to developing consciousness.

Przegalińska is a senior research associate at Harvard University analyzing AI, robots and the future of work. She has a doctorate in the philosophy of artificial intelligence from the University of Warsaw and is an associate professor at Kozminski University.

---

The AI Revolution

Interest in artificial intelligence exploded when ChatGPT first hit the masses in November 2022. While AI has technically been around for decades, the sheer accessibility of directly interacting with a chatbot led to a surge in chatter, as evidenced by Google search trend data.

But it wasn’t just talk. Companies were quick to put money on the table. Nothing comes close to Microsoft’s $10 billion OpenAI investment, but tech companies, health care firms and venture capitalists were quick to ink their own deals in the first quarter of 2023. Microsoft’s move also triggered an AI search-engine race, pushing Google to release Bard, its experimental AI-powered search tool.

---

The Fear Factor

As humans reckon with the future of artificial intelligence capabilities, Aleksandra Przegalińska, a doctorate in the philosophy of AI, says the most prevalent emotion is fear.

Przegalińska said many factors play into this fear, from movies like “The Terminator” to fear spread by AI developers themselves.

This past spring, AI leaders and public figures attached their names to the following statement. Key names that signed on include OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis and Bill Gates.

“Sam Altman is obviously telling the Congress that we should all be scared but then again, he’s incubating GPT-5 as we speak,” Przegalińska said. “This to me seems a bit strange. Either you say, ‘Okay, there is a chance that this technology will be misused and this is the way I would like to address these concerns,’ or you’re saying, ‘Well, it’s ultimately the worst thing that can happen to humanity and I just simply stop building it at all.'”

The history of civilization may explain the innate fear of AI. Dive into the philosophy of it here.

---

Replaced by AI?

Perhaps the biggest fear of AI is the possibility that it could replace so many livelihoods. In March, investment bank Goldman Sachs predicted that AI could automate the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs between the U.S. and Europe.

Przegalińska, whose research at Harvard University focuses on AI and the future of work, says developers should focus on how humans can collaborate with AI to increase productivity but not replace humans altogether.

“But our jobs will change and some jobs will probably disappear because of artificial intelligence,” Przegalińska said. “And I do think that politicians have to look at that as well.”

In May 2023, AI was responsible for 3,900 job cuts in the U.S., according to data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

Is the future a work-optional utopia where AI does all the work? Learn more.

---

Regulating AI

When it comes to regulating AI, the U.S. is not the one setting the global groundwork. This summer, the European Union passed a draft law known as the A.I. Act, legislation that is years in the making. But it’s just a start.

“I do regret a bit that this regulation happened this late,” Przegalińska said. “Many people from the AI field have been calling for regulation before ChatGPT and way before ChatGPT. We knew already that there would be some problems because some of these systems are just not explainable. They’re like black boxes; they’re very difficult to understand and yet we use them.”

Meanwhile, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have held several hearings about risks posed by artificial intelligence and ways to regulate its use. However, American efforts are considered to be in the early stages. Also, lawmakers have been criticized in the past for not understanding the technology they aim to regulate, like during Big Tech hearings in the past.

“There was a bit of a mismatch in terms of digital competencies,” Przegalińska said.

How should AI be regulated to combat deepfakes and bad actors? Click here for more.

---

The Uncanny Valley

How easy is it to tell what is real and what is artificial? AI today has some serious quirks, like generating eight or nine fingers on one hand. But as technology advances, it’ll get more and more difficult to separate fact from fiction.

In real life and in movies, those in robotics have pursued building robots that look and act human, coming close to crossing the uncanny valley.

“The uncanny valley is this concept that tells us that if something resembles a human being, but not fully, then we are scared of it,” Przegalińska said. “So our probably very deeply, inrooted biological response to something that looks like a human and is not a human and we know that, is to just have this eerie sensation that this is not something we should be interacting with.”

What are the psychological effects of crossing into the uncanny valley? Click here to watch.

Full interview time stamps:

0:00-2:22 Introduction
2:23-5:00 My Unconventional Path To AI Research
5:01-9:42 How The Terminator, Media Drive Our AI Fears
9:43-13:01 Sam Altman, AI Developers Spreading Fear
13:02-14:00 Elon Musk’s Big Regret?
14:01-18:55 How ChatGPT Changed Everything
18:56-25:01 Do Politicians Know Enough About AI To Regulate?
25:02-31:48 The Dangers Of The Uncanny Valley, Deepfakes
31:49-39:27 Will AI Cause Massive Unemployment?
39:28-43:49 Answering Most-Searched Questions About AI

Will generative artificial intelligence enhance the way professionals work or replace them altogether? While it is still in its early stages, generative AI is expanding automation into a much wider set of the workforce.

Goldman Sachs predicted that AI could automate the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs between the U.S. and Europe.

“Some sort of luxury version of a utopia where we don’t work, or we choose to work whenever we feel like it, and then we rely on a very generous, universal basic income; well, that’s probably not something that’s going to happen,” said Aleksandra Przegalińska, an AI expert researching the future of work at Harvard University. “So we should push for a vision or scenario where humans are working and they are enhanced by artificial intelligence.”

By 2030, 30% of hours worked in the U.S. today could be automated, according to a recent report by McKinsey Global Institute. While AI could enhance productivity among STEM, creative, and business and legal professionals, McKinsey projects it will eliminate jobs in office support, customer service and food service.

AI expert Aleksandra Przegalińska joins Straight Arrow News from Warsaw, Poland, for an in-depth conversation about the future of AI, from job replacement to developing consciousness. Watch the full conversation here.

Below is an excerpt from that interview.

Aleksandra Przegalińska: You touched upon a very important part of decision-making; that we have to find or strike a balance where we are still the main or key decision-makers.

For instance, I am now involved in a project that we are doing at my university in Warsaw, Kozminski University, with Harvard University. And in that project, we are looking at collaborative AI, so the type of artificial intelligence that is designed for collaboration with humans. So it does not do the job instead of you, but instead works together with you.

And that’s a very different approach that I think can be very useful in many different professions. We are now testing our tool, that is also generative, on salespeople and marketers. We’ve seen an increase in productivity, but also an increase in job satisfaction.

And this is something that we would like, right? Getting rid of some routines and really focusing in our work on something that is interesting and fun for us. So I do hope that this is the trajectory that we will choose.

And I would really look very carefully at the speed and pace of automation, finding the proper use cases for it. Not everything can be done by generative AI and also not everything should be done by generative AI. So I do think that we have a bit of road mapping to do ahead of us.

Simone Del Rosario: Do you think there’s a risk of someone taking the technology a little bit too far just because the technology can go there? And then by then, it’s too late and you can’t really figure out why it’s a better case to have humans in that role over AI.

Aleksandra Przegalińska: Well, I do think that many things can go wrong if you decide to choose that pathway of full automation. Many things can go wrong because this is just a technology. It does not have any experiences, any internal states, no affections, no emotions. It’s just designed by humans and it’s prompted by humans. So you have to know how to use it in order to use it well. If you just rely on it, usually the results are not so spectacular. So in that way, I would say that those who choose full automation will probably not be very happy with their choice.

Should government have a role in regulating artificial intelligence? When asked in a closed-door meeting with tech executives, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “every single person raised their hands, even though they had diverse views.”

The overnight sensation of ChatGPT put a timer on government oversight, as politicians scrambled to convene hearings on Capitol Hill about the need for regulation.

The U.S. is behind the ball on regulating AI when compared to the European Union, which passed draft legislation known as the AI Act this summer. The AI Act was first proposed by the European Commission in 2021, over a year before OpenAI released ChatGPT.

Countries and commissions face many challenges when it comes to regulating the fast-moving technology. To start, government regulation has never been able to keep up with technological advances, and politicians have regularly displayed an inability to understand the field. So why are some of tech’s biggest executives pushing for regulation?

AI expert Aleksandra Przegalińska joins Straight Arrow News from Warsaw, Poland, for an in-depth conversation about the future of AI, from job replacement to developing consciousness. Watch the full conversation here.

Below is an excerpt from that interview.

Simone Del Rosario: All of this conversation has really been sparked over who’s going to regulate AI and this urgency behind that effort to regulate AI. Who do you think should be regulating something like this, though? You have to admit that politicians aren’t really the most well-versed in the most groundbreaking technology.

Aleksandra Przegalińska: That is correct. And we’ve seen that with social media and the hearings of Mark Zuckerberg in the Senate. There was a bit of a mismatch in terms of digital competencies.

But ultimately, I think it has to be a collective effort of many different stakeholders because this technology is not only about technology. It’s not about IT people and how they’re going to use it, but it’s a technology that is very, very broad. It’s a general-purpose technology, you could even say.

It’s the type of technology that will penetrate so many different professions, tasks, accountants, health care professionals, different people who are working in various organizations, business, consultancy. Wherever you look, you will see AI. So in that way, I think it has to be a collective effort.

I do regret a bit that this regulation happens this late, because actually, many people from the AI field have been calling for regulation before ChatGPT, way before ChatGPT. And we knew already that there will be some problems because some of these systems are just not explainable. They’re like black boxes. They are very difficult to understand and yet we use them.

We want them to make decisions about important things like giving someone a loan in a bank or not, or declining. So we really need to understand what these systems are doing. And that has been a problem way before ChatGPT.

But now I am sort of glad that there’s at least a debate. And I do hope that this time around, the politicians will come prepared and that they will be better prepared for these types of discussions. They do have experts. They can talk to many people.

I observed what’s been going on at the White House. There was a meeting between Kamala Harris and many representatives of those companies that are building generative tools, generative AI.

There has been a hearing at the Senate where one of the senators said that Sam Altman should tell everyone how to regulate AI. And I don’t think it’s necessarily the best way to go. We need at least a couple of rounds of different consultations. Many companies have to be involved, but also NGOs, civil society, researchers who are not working in private companies but also at universities.

There are many people with good ideas so it has to be a dialogue. And I just hope that this time around, we will do a better job than we did with social media.

The uncanny valley as a concept has been around for decades. But as artificial intelligence develops, technology is several steps closer to tricking human brains and manipulating emotions.

The term uncanny valley is used to describe the emotional response from humans when encountering robots that appear human-like. AI expert and philosopher Aleksandra Przegalińska said humans have a common biological response to this interaction: an eerie sensation.

“In the era of deepfakes and also in the context of the fact that we are mostly interacting with the digital world, not necessarily with physical robots, this uncanny valley idea is very, very problematic,” Przegalińska said.

In the video above, she details how encounters with human lookalikes could make people afraid of actual human interaction.

AI expert Aleksandra Przegalińska joins Straight Arrow News from Warsaw, Poland, for an in-depth conversation about the future of AI, from job replacement to developing consciousness. Watch the full conversation here.

Below is an excerpt from that interview.

Simone Del Rosario: I was hoping that you could explain for me this concept of the uncanny valley. I’ve heard you talk on it before and I just thought it was a really fascinating look at where people should be designing AI versus where they should be steering away from.

Aleksandra Przegalińska: This is a concept that my team and I have been researching for the past couple of years. It was mainly focused on building robots and how not to build them.

The uncanny valley is this concept that tells us that if something resembles a human being but not fully, then we are scared of it. So our probably very deeply, inrooted biological response to something that looks like a human and is not a human and we know that, is to just have this eerie sensation that this is not something we should be interacting with.

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with a robot called Sophia. It’s very, very popular on social media and it gives you that sensation or effect of the uncanny valley — just sort of very confusing to figure out whether you’re really talking to something that is alive or not. Is it healthy or is it sick? What’s going on with it? Why is the mimic so weird? Why are the eyes rolling so slowly?

So it does resemble a human, but then again, it’s not a human. And that is interesting because now in the era of deepfakes and also in the context of the fact that we are mostly interacting with the digital world, not necessarily with physical robots, this uncanny valley idea is very, very problematic.

We do see avatars that look almost exactly like humans, where that immediate response of your body is just acceptance. You’re seeing something that looks like a human and it talks and it’s all good. But then there’s suddenly a glitch and that glitch is that moment when you realize that this may not be a human.

Then who knows? Maybe in the future, when there will be more deepfakes, we will become very cautious and afraid of interactions with others because it will be very hard to classify who is it that we’re dealing with.

Conversations around artificial intelligence are often filled with fear and threat. Much of it can be traced back to movies, news stories, and even comments by those developing the technology, according to a Harvard senior research associate with a Ph.D. in the philosophy of artificial intelligence.

“Instead of focusing on things that are to be solved and some challenges ahead, we are just clearly falling into that Terminator narrative,” Aleksandra Przegalińska said.

Przegalińska said experts in the field are among those most afraid of the technology. Many have signed on to statements warning of the risks associated with AI but continue developing it.

AI expert Aleksandra Przegalińska joins Straight Arrow News from Warsaw, Poland, for an in-depth conversation about the future of AI, from job replacement to developing consciousness. Watch the full conversation here.

Below is an excerpt from that interview.

Simone Del Rosario: What are some of the emotions that we struggle with when we’re reckoning with the AI development going on?

Aleksandra Przegalińska: I think the most prevalent emotion is probably fear. When you think about it, the way the story of artificial intelligence is being told to us by pop culture, by media, by movies that we like, like ‘The Terminator,’ it is mostly really a story that is infused with fear, with a sense of threat, where artificial intelligence can reach a level where it figures out that it’s also as smart as we are, or perhaps even smarter, and then becomes our enemy.

And I think it’s in many ways a story about our history, how we’ve struggled, and how there were so many conflicts and revolutions as we were moving forward as a civilization. And I do think that we put many of these fears into AI because this is something we know.

On the other hand, we are absolutely intrigued, right? It’s an intriguing field. We don’t have any other technology that is so close to us that can also communicate with us, have a perception of reality, see something, hear something, respond, make inferences, reason. So I think in that way, we are challenged by it, but we are also very interested and intrigued by it and how it’s going to evolve in the future is a very intriguing question here.

Brent Jabbour: I have an interesting question about that, too, because you talk about the fear and the concerns about Terminator and Skynet. Do you think us, as a society, we do a disservice because every time something interesting in AI comes up, we immediately go to the bad rather than the possible good?

Aleksandra Przegalińska: Well, yes, I absolutely agree with that. So I’m definitely on the, I hope, rational side here. So very often, I would just say, ‘Hey, let’s not panic. It’s just technology. AI is a statistical model. It’s very good at what it does, and it can be very helpful to us, but nonetheless, it’s just a tool.’ But there are many other experts also, you know, people who are so prominent in the field who are clearly afraid of this technology. The current discourse around artificial intelligence, including generative AI, something we will probably talk about, is absolutely full of panic, which is unnecessary and perhaps it is a bit of a disservice because instead of focusing on things that are to be solved and some challenges ahead, we are just clearly falling into that Terminator narrative immediately, right. And that does not help us in rational thinking and planning, strategizing around this technology. So that I think is a problem.

Can former President Donald Trump be banned from the 2024 presidential election ballot over his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol building? Some legal scholars and politicians are trying to make that case. 

Advocates for removing Trump contend the Jan. 6 riot was an insurrection and that Trump should be disqualified as a a result.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states in part: “No person shall…hold any office…having previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Now some secretaries of state are wondering how they should legally move forward with Trump on the ballot. 

However, a number of constitutional law experts argue the 14th Amendment does not apply to Trump. That includes the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, Professor Michael McConnell, who joined Straight Arrow News to explain. 

Ray Bogan: 

You wrote that Jan. 6 was not necessarily an insurrection or rebellion, and that the former president did not engage or give “aid” or “comfort” to it in the way that the framers [of the Constitution] meant. Why not? What was the intent of the 14th Amendment?

Professor McConnell: 

The 14th Amendment was enacted immediately after the Civil War. And the purpose of Section 3 was to make sure that people who had been officials of the United States government and taken an oath of loyalty and then abandoned that and supported the Confederacy would not be able to hold office until Congress gave them permission to do so.

Bogan:  

People who support using the 14th Amendment to remove Trump from the ballot say it’s self-enforcing, meaning a secretary of state can remove him on their own without a court ruling or conviction. What do you make of that argument?

McConnell: 

Well, nothing is self-enforcing. That would be enforcement by a state secretary of state, and the authority of state secretaries of state varies from one state to another. So in the first instance, that’s a question of state law. I have very little doubt that if a state election official were to remove Mr. Trump or anyone else from the ballot, under Section 3, that would be taken up to the United States Supreme Court pretty fast.

Bogan:

To that point, I want to ask you about Arizona and Michigan specifically — those are two states that Trump won in 2016 and lost in 2020. They could be deciding factors in 2024. And they also both have Democratic secretaries of state. So what do you think of the possibility of a Democratic secretary of state removing Trump from the ballot in a crucial swing state?

McConnell: 

Well, I think that’s not unlikely. There’s a lot of political pressure to do that. And there is a, you know, a colorable legal argument for it. And these days, it seems as though everybody on both sides pushes every power they have to the limit.

Bogan: 

The House January 6 investigative committee made a recommendation to the Justice Department that Trump be charged with “Incite,” “Assist” or “Aid” and “Comfort” an insurrection. But Special Counsel Jack Smith did not charge him with that. And the Justice Department has prosecuted hundreds of people for their involvement in the Jan. 6 riot but has not charged anyone with insurrection. So let’s say, for purposes of this conversation, Trump was charged and found guilty of insurrection, or somebody who was there on Jan. 6 was found guilty and that there was an official court finding that Trump gave them aid or comfort. Does that change anything? Could he be removed then?

McConnell: 

So the criminal statute of insurrection does state that anyone convicted of insurrection becomes ineligible to hold office. So there could indeed be an effect from that. Now, I don’t believe that Section 3 necessarily requires a criminal conviction. But I think it’s very significant that the Department of Justice must have thought about this. They have all the evidence, they know more about this than any of us do, and they chose not to bring a charge of insurrection against Mr. Trump or anybody else involved with Jan. 6.

Bogan: 

I would like to ask you one question about former Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. He said Trump cannot be disqualified under the 14th Amendment because that only applies to officers, not elected officials. And as president, he took a different oath of office than appointed officials. But let me ask you this: Is it plausible to argue that the president is not only an officer of the United States, but he is the chief executive officer?

McConnell: 

So I’m not sure how the courts are going to rule on this or even whether they would get to it. But it is the case that the word office, either officer or civil office is used in about four different provisions of the Constitution. And the others almost certainly apply only to appointed office. So for example, the president is charged with commissioning all civil officers of the United States. He does not commission himself — no president or vice president has ever been commissioned. And the explanation for that is that they aren’t officers. Similarly, members of the House and Senate cannot serve in any civil office under the United States. And yet, in the case of a vacancy in the office, the Speaker of the House is the next right after the vice president to step in. That would be unconstitutional if the presidency is in fact a civil office. So I don’t know, ultimately how the courts would resolve this. But Attorney General Mukasey’s argument is certainly not frivolous.

Bogan: 

Secretaries of state in Colorado, Michigan, Arizona and New Hampshire are all trying to get some legal clarity on this issue. The New Hampshire secretary of state said he’s going to ask his state’s attorney general, while others have said they’re going to be going to the courts for clarity. Who should the secretaries of state be getting their guidance from? 

McConnell: 

Well, in the first instance, they should be getting their guidance from their lawyer, which is presumably the state attorney general. But ultimately, this is going to be decided in court.

Bogan: 

And what happens if 50 secretaries of state each come to their own conclusions as to whether Trump can be on the ballot in their state and they all give 50 different reasons. Who settles that?

McConnell: 

Well, my guess is that this is going to go up to the Supreme Court pretty fast and that they will settle it. I don’t actually believe the Supreme Court is likely to intervene if they leave him on the ballot. But I think if any major candidate for office were removed from the ballot on the basis of some legally questionable, and I don’t mean wrong, but questionable, debatable justification, that the Supreme Court will step in. Because, after all, Americans do have a fundamental right to cast our votes for the candidates of our choice. And if that’s going to be taken away from us, I think that the Supreme Court is going to make sure that it was properly grounded.

Bogan: 

Then finally, let me ask you one more question. In Colorado, a group of voters sued to keep Trump off the ballot. And there have also been suggestions that some of Trump’s primary opponents should sue and say they would be injured or harmed with him still on the ballot, because he would take votes away from them. In your mind, is there a particular party that can show they have true standing to sue here?

McConnell: 

I do think that other candidates are more likely to be found to have standing. And I think the leading jurisdictional problem with the lawsuit in Colorado is actually the timing, what we call in the law “ripeness.” Because nothing has actually happened. And you don’t have a right just to sue in the vacuum thinking, you know, something might happen that might be unconstitutional. Nothing unconstitutional has happened. And it might never happen. And so I think it’s not unlikely the lawsuit will be tossed out.

For the first time in recorded history, more Americans report having no trust in mass media reporting the news fully, accurately and fairly than those who trust media a fair or great amount. The results from the most recent Gallup poll on the topic show overall trust in media remains near a record low.

Meanwhile, nearly 3 in 4 Americans believe the media is doing more to increase polarization in the country, according to a 2023 AP-NORC poll.

Media bias is a prevailing concern for news consumers. Half of Americans reported feeling that most national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public, Gallup and Knight Foundation found.

It’s no surprise, then, that Americans are increasingly searching for unbiased news sources. Google searches spike around elections, with the most interest in history recorded in November 2020.

“Americans recognize the problem,” said Vanessa Otero, CEO of Ad Fontes Media and creator of the Media Bias Chart. “They realize when there’s this flood of information that they have to sort through, and unfortunately, because there are so many news sources, the responsibility falls on folks to sort through them.”

Third-party media bias evaluators like Ad Fontes Media aim to help news consumers navigate the increasingly crowded and complex media terrain using a simple media bias chart.

While analyzing bias can also be inherently biased, Ad Fontes Media said it combats that by using a politically balanced group of analysts to determine where media organizations score on its chart. That means each piece of news is rated by analysts who identify as right-leaning, left-leaning and center.

Straight Arrow News spoke to Ad Fontes Media CEO Vanessa Otero about America’s media bias problem and how it’s affecting society.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: How have you seen the media bias landscape change since you started analyzing this in 2016?

A: It’s a great question. It’s grown. There are just more and more and more news and information sources out there every day. Unfortunately, one way it hasn’t changed is that it’s still quite polarizing. When I started the Media Bias Chart in 2016, the impetus of it was really the fact that there were so many polarizing news sources and people were fighting over them. Unfortunately, that’s still the case, but there’s just more to navigate. 

Q: Would you say there are more hyper-partisan options now or more options in the middle?

A: I think there’s more of both. There are a lot of news sources that are in the middle. Most of the news sources we rate tend to be less biased, but the ones that are on the far left and right are the loudest and they seem to get most of the attention.

So there’s really more of both. But because there are so many news sources to choose from, people have to be really intentional about seeking out things that are minimally biased and highly reliable. 

Q: What does that tell us about Americans’ news consumption if the ones on the edges are getting more viewership and attention?

A: Look, folks are polarized. Every poll that you look at shows increasing and increasing polarization over the last 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. And not just polarization but what’s called affective polarization: the kind where it makes you dislike, distrust, or even hate folks on the other side.

That, I think, is really damaging and dangerous. When you’re not assuming the folks on the other side have good intentions; when you’re just assuming that they disagree with you because they’re stupid or evil or both, it’s really hard to come to any kind of consensus.

But things that you agree with tend to give you this confirmation bias. We’re programmed to like things that we already agree with. So what it tells you about Americans is that we can fall into those traps really easily.

It’s not hopeless, though. We can do something about it. We can recognize that something that we’re strongly agreeing with is just feeding our confirmation bias; that maybe that’s not the most effective way to make decisions or live your life. If politics is dividing your family and your friends, you’re not able to have conversations with folks, it may be an indication that you’re focusing on very polarizing news sources.

Q: This is going to be a hard question to answer. It’s sort of a ‘chicken versus the egg’ argument. Do you think that more media bias is increasing political division or do you think it’s the other way around?

A: Great question. The causes of polarization are many. There are constitutional causes because you can have politicians that drive polarization. But the media is a big part of it.

There are many stakeholders in our democracy – the citizenry, politicians, the media – and each influences each other in a push-and-pull kind of way.

One thing we’ve seen since the advent of cable news is the participation of politicians in media. How often do you look at a cable news show and politicians are on the cable news show? This happens all night, every night, every channel.

So politicians are part of the media and politicians, just like every other citizen, are susceptible to confirmation bias; to being wrapped up in their own side’s stuff and not being able to filter out highly reliable versus low-reliable information.

I don’t know if you notice, but there are some politicians that are not very good at telling what’s true in the news and they participate in the extreme bias of the news. So I think it’s really a combination of both where they feed off of each other.

Q: CNN says it’s unbiased. Fox dropped the ‘Fair and Balanced’ slogan but says it’s the most trusted. What does your analysis say?

A: It’s funny, what you say as a slogan and what you actually do can be different things. Also, how people perceive you can be really different things.

One of the most common ways of measuring media bias is consumer opinion polling: asking people, ‘How much do you trust Fox or CNN or MSNBC?’ And really, the answer to that question tells you so much more about the person and their politics than it does about the news source.

The way we go about it is by analyzing the content, which is hard to do. It’s a little bit easier to poll a bunch of folks and say, ‘What do you think about this?’ But the content itself has the answers.

You can look at the headlines, the graphics and each individual sentence. You can see how they’re expressed as fact, analysis and opinion, and you can fact-check the claims that are in there. You can see if they advocate for left or right political positions. You can see how they refer to political issues or opponents. So you can actually tell from looking at the content.

What our data shows is that Fox is right-leaning, CNN is left-leaning, and MSNBC is left-leaning, a little bit more so than CNN. And they have varying levels of reliability. What’s really fascinating is that internet content – like CNN.com, FoxNews.com, or MSNBC.com – tends to be less biased and more reliable than their TV counterparts, which have a lot of primetime opinion programming. And opinion programming really isn’t news.

Q: It is our belief that Americans are hungry for unbiased news. That is why Straight Arrow News is here. How is Straight Arrow News doing in that mission, according to your analysis?

A: Really well. I think Straight Arrow News is correct in the assumption that people are looking for unbiased news. Of course, everyone has some bias, right? It’s really hard to be unbiased. But you can mitigate your bias as best you can by trying, by showing balance and by describing things as straightforwardly as possible.

We’ve seen so many Americans say, ‘Yes, we want unbiased news. Can I just go turn something on where I’m not being told what to think? Or I’m just getting the facts?’ People say that all the time. It’s one of the reasons you see this level of trust declining in those opinion polls. People don’t trust news when it’s more full of opinion and analysis than actual fact reporting.

Straight Arrow News is right in the middle for bias on our chart. That middle section is labeled minimal or balanced bias. And it’s rated as highly reliable. That’s what we’re looking for in the media landscape. That’s what we want. We want to promote the work of good journalists who are bringing folks facts that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to find on their own.

Q: In the history of Google search trends, the search for unbiased news sources was never higher than in November 2020. What does that tell us about what Americans are looking for as they go to the polls?

A: So much. We actually did some studies around social media and monitoring the spread of biased and unreliable information before, during and after the November 2020 election. There was a marked increase in misinformation and polarizing content being shared across the board.

People have a need and desire to be well-informed. They don’t want to feel lost. You don’t want to go around not knowing what’s true. It’s very disorienting. It’s very unsettling.

What that tells me is that Americans recognize the problem. Americans are smart. They realize when there’s this flood of information that they have to sort through and unfortunately, because there are so many news sources, the responsibility falls on folks to sort through them.

That’s why we exist because no one has time to sort through tens of thousands of information sources. So we’re a reference point. Ultimately, people should make the determinations for themselves and learn to recognize reliability and bias. But when there are just so many out there, it’s really helpful to have a guidepost. And so we just hope we can be that for folks.

Student loan debt is again accruing interest without much reform following a 3.5-year payment pause. Meanwhile, millions of current college students will soon join the existing indebted borrowers that have racked up around $1.8 trillion in debt to date.

University spending sprees are far outpacing enrollment and inflation, fueling the student debt crisis. As colleges spend, students and taxpayers, through government aid, foot a lot of the bill.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal analysis, the median U.S. flagship university increased spending by 38% over the past two decades while enrollment is up just 21% over the same time. The enrollment growth occurred during the first decade of data since undergraduate enrollment has been on the decline since 2010.

In an interview with Straight Arrow News, former Old Dominion University President James V. Koch reveals details behind the governing bodies that approve spending increases at public universities and where the money is going. He also warns of an impending semi-depression set to hit universities in 2026. Koch is an economist and co-author of “Runaway College Costs: How College Governing Boards Fail to Protect Their Students.”

This interview has been edited for clarity.

Q: Your own research showed that public university trustees approved 98% of the cost-increasing proposals that were put in front of them. Most of the time it was unanimous. What does that tell us about the culture of spending at universities?

A: Public university trustees should be fiduciaries; they should be people who are taking care of students, parents and taxpaying citizens. But they tend not to do that very effectively. They tend to buy into institutional narratives that say, ‘We want to be this, we want to be that,’ and they get taken in by that and end up voting for things that probably they shouldn’t.

Q: What are some of the red flags that you see when you look at how universities are spending their money?

A: I have data going back to 2004. Since then, the typical public university has spent 1-2% more annually per year on an average student than the rate of price inflation. So they’re spending more than the CPI and this has gone on year after year after year. So that’s a dangerous signal.

If you look behind that, you see they’re spending money on new buildings, granite tabletops in dormitories, especially on intercollegiate athletics. But there are a variety of other things, exercise facilities and lots of additional administrators.

In fact, I would pick that out as a particular problem. Administrative overhead has gone up in the typical public institution over the last 20 years. And it’s not just a little bit, it’s a huge amount.

Q: What do you think is the motivation behind this type of spending? Do they think that it’s going to be attracting more students to come into their universities?

A: Yes, I think that’s part of it, and higher education enrollments have been going down 11 years in a row now. There are 3 million fewer college students in the U.S. right now than there were in 2011. So that’s caused universities to say, ‘Gee, what are we going to do about this?’

In many industries outside of higher education, the response would be: We need to change our product; we need to improve it; we need to lower prices; we need to become more efficient.

But in higher education, for the most part, that has not happened. Higher education is deciding, ‘Well, we’re going to raise prices and add things to our product; we’re going to have those granite tabletops in the dorms because we think that will attract students; we’ll spend more money on intercollegiate athletics if we think students would like to attend games and do that sort of thing.’

So the reaction in higher education has been different than it would be, let’s say, in the steel industry, or if they were selling computers or automobiles.

Q: There’s a Wall Street Journal analysis that says the percentage of spending increases outpaced enrollment by nearly two to one from the last two decades. Who is footing the bill for these increases?

A: For the most part, it’s students. They’re paying more than they used to and tuition and fees have gone up faster than the CPI. Also, the federal government is paying for a good portion of this through federal student loans.

There is a persuasive economic argument to be made that the federal government is actually enabling the inflation that we’ve seen in higher education by providing so much in the way of student loans.

Now, I think student loans are necessary and I’m entirely in favor of need-based financial aid. But the federal government seems to have gone overboard somewhat in this respect and is granting money to universities that they then loan to students.

Part of the problem is that if a student doesn’t pay back his or her loan, the university bears no penalty. So they’re in favor of granting as much loan money to students as they can because they don’t have to pay for it.

Q: As a former university president yourself, how would you tackle this situation? How would you go about cutting spending to prepare for lower enrollment numbers?

A: I think university presidents are like most people, they respond to incentives. And part of the problem here is that boards reward presidents for doing bigger and better things. They don’t reward them for holding costs down or being more efficient.

What we need, then, is for governing boards to start rewarding presidents who are really making their institution more efficient and controlling prices and controlling costs. But instead, what happens is they get rewarded for more research money and building more buildings and having a bigger athletic enterprise. Mine is not to say that some of those things aren’t good but we’ve simply overdone those kinds of things in higher education.

Q: Who’s making up these boards and what sort of fiduciary responsibility do they have?

A: For the most part, in most states, the governor nominates the people who fill boards and then those individuals have to be approved by the Senate or the House or maybe both houses of the legislature. So it really starts in the governor’s office.

You have to appoint people to boards who recognize that they should be fiduciaries and not fans and advocates of the institution. But the nature of the political beast is, who’s going to get appointed to a board? It’s the individuals who gave the largest contributions to the governor as a major qualification.

These are individuals who want to be on a specific board. To be on the board of, let’s say, the University of Virginia, that ordinarily requires a financial contribution of some significance. As a consequence, when these people get on the board, it’s ordinarily because they are fans and proponents of the institution and not because they’ve been told by the government, ‘You need to pay attention to costs, you need to worry about administrative overhead.’ Those kinds of things fall into the background.

So part of the problem, in addition to what I just mentioned, is we need states to orient and train board members when they join boards so that they understand what the nature of the beast is and how these costs have increased over time. But in many states, that simply doesn’t happen.

Q: Where would you like to see cuts in university spending. Is it in the extracurriculars, in the buildings, in research, in programs for students? Where’s the most logical place to implement these cuts?

A: Nearly all of those qualify but I would pick out in particular administrative costs. We have too many associate deans and directors and the like. That kind of spending has proliferated. Intercollegiate athletics is another area.

In Virginia, for example, at James Madison University, students pay an annual athletic fee that is mandatory of more than $2,300 a year. That’s an astonishingly large amount for a student to pay for the privilege of attending intercollegiate athletic events.

One is hard put to say that really makes their degree more worthwhile and that makes them more competitive after they leave the institution. So administrative overhead and athletics are two major areas.

But in general, I think we have to look at expenditures and say, ‘Is this benefiting students? Is it making them more competitive? Are they learning more?’ And that kind of approach to governance isn’t very common today in public higher education.

Q: Because of the student debt crisis, the idea of the college dream and investing so much money into it seems to have lost its luster in recent years. Do you think fewer and fewer people are going to be enrolling in these expensive four-year universities down the road?

A: Oh, absolutely. I think higher education is in for a semi-depression, if not a recession, in terms of enrollment.

In 2026 begins what many people are terming the enrollment cliff, the absolute number of high school graduates nationally is going to decline and it will decline for 10 or 15 years. We already know because these people are born. And as a consequence, there aren’t going to be as many conventionally-aged students who are available to go to college.

So when I said earlier that college enrollments have fallen 11 years in a row, that might stretch out to 20 years in a row or 25 years in a row. Higher education is headed for some really pretty bad times, and they need to adjust now in order to survive. I think many small private institutions are simply going to go out of business and we are likely to see mergers among public institutions that have simply gotten too small and too expensive to operate.

Will those looking to buy a car ever catch a break? With interest rates around 7% and average monthly payments above $700, it has never been more expensive to buy and finance a new car while affordable used cars remain hard to find.

A glimmer of hope has arrived for hopeful buyers: According to a recent UBS report, global automakers are overproducing, which could lead to an excess of 5 million vehicles and price cuts to clear lots later this year. But a looming strike could throw a wrench in it all.

United Auto Workers vote to strike the ‘Big Three‘

The United Auto Workers union voted Friday, Aug. 25, to authorize a strike against Detroit’s “Big Three” – General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Stellantis, the Jeep and Chrysler maker – if contracts aren’t reached by Sept. 14.

Union president Shawn Fain said on behalf of the 150,000 workers, he is calling for 46% raises, the return of traditional pensions and 32-hour work weeks. The UAW has never had strikes for all three houses at the same time.

“There might not be any impact right away, but eventually what that would lead to is something that we saw about a year ago and maybe even back into the pandemic era,” said Brian Moody, executive editor at AutoTrader.com. “The way it will impact consumers is the prices will eventually go up and they may not be able to find exactly what they want. Again, not dissimilar to what we were seeing about a year ago.”

For now, Moody said there’s an abundant supply of vehicles and it would take some time for supply to be constrained in the event of a strike.

Average auto loan payments accelerating

As of July 2023, the average monthly new car payment is $733 a month, a 37% increase in the past 5 years, according to Edmunds. The figure marks roughly 15% of the average pre-tax salary, while experts suggest spending no more than 15% of take-home pay.

A lot of the increase is certainly tied to rising car prices and rising interest rates. But Moody said buyers are also overextending themselves.

“A lot of people who are buying a new car are opting for a luxury brand,” he said, pointing to a rise in luxury market share. He said based on the data, buyers are also leveling up in trim, even in lower-priced models.

Edmunds reported that more than 1 in 6 people – 17.1% – who financed a vehicle in the second quarter of 2023 have a monthly payment of $1,000 or more, an all-time peak. In the second quarter of 2019, only 4.3% of people financed a vehicle with a monthly payment reaching or exceeding $1,000.

“That’s crazy,” Moody said. “The idea that people are maybe overextending themselves with $1,000-a-month car payments, I think that’s concerning.”

Hunting for used cars

The average used car payment is $569, compared with a new car payment of $733, Edmunds reports. But finding a used car, especially a near-new car, is proving more difficult these days.

One factor is similar to what’s being experienced in the housing market: Prior interest rates are so much more favorable that auto owners aren’t interested in trading up and facing higher rates.

“But there’s also the fact that the cars are more reliable. The average used car on the road right now is about 12 years old. That means that those cars are working for them right now,” Moody said.

He also added that price point is key to selection.

“The more expensive the used car, the more abundant the supply, the more inexpensive the used car, the harder those are to come by,” he said. “There are very few cars available across the country if you’re looking for something under $10,000. If you’re looking for something over $30,000, you’re gonna have plenty to pick from.”

Auto loan delinquencies are at 7.3%, above pre-pandemic levels. Is it alarming? Brian Moody gives his thoughts in the video above.