- Details
-
Tuesday, 10 February 2026
-
Written by Troy Williams
The 2026 Election Primary begins this week. Unlike municipal elections, these races are partisan: Democrats are on one side, Republicans on the other, and unaffiliated voters must choose which primary they wish to participate in. The ballots will include options for voting on candidates from the local board of commissioners up to the U.S. Senate.
Former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill wisely stated, "All politics is local." This insightful remark highlights the significant role that community issues play in political decisions. Engaging at the local level is crucial for fostering meaningful change and progress. While variations of this phrase date back to 1932, U.S. elections have become increasingly nationalized in recent decades. In the context of the current polls, all politics has become national, even at the local level.
When politics becomes predominantly national, it influences how voters act at the local level. Instead of focusing on the qualifications of local candidates and their potential to improve daily life, voters often prioritize national agendas and partisan ideologies, which can overshadow local concerns.
Should we prioritize whether our local candidates genuinely align with the ideologies of the WOKE left or the MAGA right? It's crucial to consider which perspective will truly serve our community's best interests. All contests on the ballot are essential, especially the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners.
Local boards of commissioners play a vital role in daily life, serving as the primary legislative and policy-making bodies for county governments. They manage local budgets, set property tax rates, approve land-use plans, and oversee essential services, including public health, emergency services, and infrastructure. Ultimately, the elected officials who serve on these boards are significant in their communities.
In the Democratic primary, there are four open seats on the Board of Commissioners: two for District 1 and two at-large. In District 1, one incumbent is seeking reelection, facing four challengers, and in the at-large seats, two incumbents are seeking reelection, facing four primary challengers. National politics isn't likely to play a role in the primary, but it will in the general election. No one has filed opposition to District 1 primary winners; however, two Republicans have filed for the at-large seats and will square off against the two Democratic survivors in November.
No one knows for sure, but it is expected that the popularity of the leading candidate on the ballot will influence candidates in lower positions. In this scenario, it is likely that former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper will affect turnout for local Democrats, and his Republican opponent, who will probably receive an endorsement from Trump, will influence down-ticket Republicans.
Many of us are hoping for a strong primary election. The county commissioner races are crucial. This election should focus on what is best for Cumberland County, rather than a WOKE versus MAGA debate.
- Details
-
Tuesday, 10 February 2026
-
Written by John Hood
According to folklore, extraordinary beings resent being confined within ordinary spaces. In “The Fisherman and the Jinni,” one of the stories Sheherazade tells her misguided husband in One Thousand and One Nights, the being in question is so angry at being imprisoned for centuries in a bottle that he has to be tricked into granting wishes rather than killing his lowly liberator outright. In Disney’s Aladdin, the genie isn’t so vengeful but still describes his confinement as “phenomenal cosmic powers” uncomfortably crammed into an “itty bitty living space.”
The real world isn’t teeming with mystic flasks or misty sorcerers. But to the people who first told fairy tales around campfires, our modern abilities to tame the elements, construct labor-saving devices, cure diseases, and fly through air and space would look an awful lot like sorcery. And, truth be told, our real world is teeming with would-be heroes trying desperately to bottle up disruptive discoveries and technologies.
Take artificial intelligence. Might it displace workers, deform journalism, debase literature, and place destructive new weapons in the hands of diabolical foes? Yes. Caution is warranted. It cannot, however, be un-invented, permanently stunted, or monopolized by a few self-appointed guardians. To believe otherwise is, indeed, to remain in a fantasy world. As a practical matter, we have no choice but to develop and use AI, as prudently and productively as we can, so as to maximize its benefits and minimize its risks.
I feel the same way about a less “gee-whiz” innovation that nevertheless presents promise as well as some peril: telehealth.
Although the digital technologies and practice models behind telehealth services predate the COVID-19 pandemic, it catalyzed a dramatic expansion. Patients needed help. Hospitals were, by necessity, limiting exposure. Physicians, therapists, and other providers were, too. So, barriers to telehealth fell. Only some were reinstated after the crisis.
Over the past five years, this innovation has proven itself to be cost-beneficial. “Telehealth is not a silver bullet,” wrote Josh Archambault and Joshua Reynolds, coauthors of a new report on the subject, “but it remains one of the most efficient and cost-effective ways to expand access to care, particularly in underserved rural communities.”
Published by the Massachusetts-based Pioneer Institute and Texas-based Cicero Institute, the report grades the 50 states according to how much they’ve adjusted their administrative and regulatory policies to facilitate provider and patient use of telehealth.
North Carolina, I’m sad to say, fares poorly in the Pioneer-Cicero study. We earn, and I do mean earn, one of the 10 failing grades Archambault and Reynolds assign. We make it too difficult for North Carolinians to obtain services from medical providers in other states. We don’t explicitly define telehealth in a neutral manner, allowing for a range of time sequences and modes (live vs. prerecorded, audio-only vs. full video, live check-ins vs. remote monitoring of conditions, etc.) based on patient and provider preferences. And we don’t allow nurse practitioners to deliver the full range of services for which they are licensed — whether remotely or in-person — without the costly and largely superfluous oversight of physicians.
Before reading the report, I was generally familiar with the case for telehealth reform and expansion. I’ve written about it before. What I didn’t yet know, however, is that the federal government has created new financial incentives for the practice under its Rural Health Transformation Program. About half of the $50 billion in grants will be awarded according to policy mix, not just baseline need, with access to telehealth represented in the grant formula both directly and indirectly.
The A-plus states of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware and Utah know what North Carolina has yet to accept: telehealth is here to stay. It’s never going back in the bottle. So let’s grant it three wishes: 1) define telehealth properly, 2) permit patients to use it freely, and 3) empower nurse practitioners to deliver it efficiently. The results won’t be miraculous. But telehealth can expand access while moderating costs. That’s good enough.
Editor’s note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).