In a January 31 Texas special election to fill a vacant state Senate seat, union official Taylor Rehmet beat conservative political activist Leigh Wambsganss by 14 points — in a district where voters picked Donald Trump for president by 17 points only a little over a year ago.

It’s the latest of election victories boosting Democrats’ hopes for a “blue wave” this November and sending Republican political strategists into full-blown panic over the prospect of losing control of one or both houses of Congress.

Even if you’re convinced that the right electoral outcomes can really change the trajectory of events, though, it’s a little early to start celebrating — or mourning.

As Harold Wilson once pointed out, “a week is a long time in politics.”

The midterm congressional elections are, as I write this, 38 weeks away.

A lot can change in 38 weeks. Only 22 weeks separated Abraham Lincoln’s election in November of 1860 from the Confederate bombardment of Fort Sumter in 1861. Only 33 weeks separated George Bush’s inauguration in January of 2001 from the 9/11 attacks.

Events of much less long-term import have their effects as well.

Yes, the party in power historically tends to lose congressional seats in midterm elections. Sometimes a few, sometimes more. Beyond that obvious likelihood, trying to predict the mood of the electorate nine months out is a fool’s errand.

I can, however, confidently predict how much will change as a direct result of the elections’ outcomes, whatever those outcomes may be:

Not much.

Aside from a few firebrands and gadflies — some of whom may even get lucky at the polls — both parties will spend the next nine months tacking toward a wholly imaginary “center.”

We’ll hear a lot, from both sides of the aisle, about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater (even if, as Harry Browne suggested, it’s Rosemary’s Baby).

On immigration enforcement, tariffs, healthcare, you name it, we’ll see a bunch of proposals for tweaking, rather than truly disrupting, business as usual. The only reliable way to tell the two sides apart will be to listen to them yell “fascist!” and “commie!” at each other in between the echoes.

And hey, who knows? Maybe a few of those tweaks will actually get implemented in 2027. The Titanic will still be sinking, but by golly the deck chairs will be nicely arranged for just a little while longer.

Politics won’t get us out of the mess that politics got us into.

But once the celebration that’s already prematurely cranking up ends, we’ll hear endless explanations of, and excuses for, why it didn’t work last time, why it didn’t work this time, and why it will no doubt, for sure, pinky promise work next time if we just keep on voting really, really hard.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On January 29, secret federal police (“Homeland Security Investigations”) arrested journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for covering, and activists Trahern Jeen Crews and Jamael Lydell Lundy for planning and organizing, a protest at a St. Paul, Minnesota church.

Arresting two journalists for covering an event most Americans correctly condemned — if you want to hold a protest during a religious service, hold it somewhere other than in the church — is a great way to create a “chilling effect” on journalism … and distract the public’s attention from other events.

If Crews and Lydell did indeed to conspire to violate the rights of others (a crime under 18 U.S.C. §241) and to interfere with religious worship (a crime under 18 U.S.C. §248), they’ll hopefully be held to appropriate legal account.

But covering such events as news isn’t a crime. It’s unlikely that the charges against Lemon and Fort will avoid dismissal by a judge and make it all the way to trial, and even more unlikely that a jury will convict them. Their arrests were part of a public relations campaign. Look! Shiny object!

So, why arrest them on January 29?

For the same reason president Donald Trump picked that day to declare yet another fake “state of emergency,” this time concerning the sudden and urgent importance  of the “Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba” that US presidents have asserted periodically over the last 72 years.

On January 30, the US Department of Justice three million pages of documents, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images pursuant to its halting, overdue, and partial compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Another three million pages are, according to federal prosecutors, “potentially responsive” the law’s requirements, but DOJ says it’s done bothering with little things like obeying the law where the late sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein is concerned.

Don’t look, Ethel! (Too late).

At least 4,500 of the three million documents mention Trump himself. Those mentions include evidence that he associated with Epstein for longer, and until later, than he’s previously claimed, and that he flew on Epstein’s private jet more times than he’s previously admitted. They also include allegations — not proven — of his involvement in the sexual abuse of minor girls and the murder of an infant born to one of those girls.

Other documents in the tranche shed light on (or at least bring heat on) Epstein’s relationships with  powerful people such as Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, and Trump’s prospective nominee to head the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh.

Kinda makes one wonder what’s in the files they AREN’T releasing, doesn’t it?

I guess I can see why Trump and friends picked January 29 to pour some Lemon aid into the ol’ news cycle.

Nice try, but no Cuban cigar.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

After only two weeks on the job, The Hill reports, Kevin Couch resigned in late January as head of artistic programming at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Couch’s brief tenure might seem surprising, but a better question is why Couch sought or accepted the position in the first place.  With a reasonably impressive record dating back 30 years as a drummer, manager, and midwest talent booker, why swim toward a sinking ship?

And a better question yet is: Why bother to keep that ship afloat at all?

In early 2025, US president Donald Trump fired the Center’s board of trustees, appointed new trustees who elected him chairman, then had the building vandalized to add his name. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that henceforth the institution would be known as the “Trump-Kennedy Center,” even though neither Trump nor Leavitt nor the trustees control its name (Congress does).

Since then, most stories coming out of the Center have consisted of “so and so quit,” “such and such artist or act canceled,” etc.

What I haven’t really seen is much in the way of suggestions that it’s a great time to dissolve the “public-private partnership” behind the Center, auction off its assets, and let the private sector fulfill whatever demand might exist for the events typically held there.

Well, fine — I’ll suggest exactly that myself, then.

The Kennedy Center receives about $40 million in taxpayer money for operations, maintenance, and facilities needs, and additional funding for “capital repair and restoration.” That’s the “public” part of the “public-private partnership.”

With a combined seating capacity of about 6,700 across its three major performance venues (the Concert Hall, the Opera House, and the Eisenhower Theater), that comes to nearly $6,000 per year per seat in annual government funding — not including the repair/restoration money.

That’s before hundreds of millions of dollars annually in “private” donations, ticket  sales, and so forth.

Oh, and the Center’s endowment is pretty flush, too: It has more than half a billion dollars set aside for a rainy day.

More than 100 million Americans attend live concerts every year, and will continue to do so with or without the Kennedy Center.

More than 25 million Americans attend live stage productions every year, and will continue to do so with or without the Kennedy Center.

So far as I can tell, those web search figures don’t include smaller acts in nightclubs and so forth.

Why are the taxpayers shelling out $40 million per year to do a job the private sector clearly has well in hand?

Instead of arguing about the name, making it a political football, and trying to track down talent to keep an ailing institution in business, cut it loose to sink or sail.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY