Commentary

Methodology

How we grade, and the rules we hold ourselves to.

The American lens. The U.S. is home to the world's largest immigrant population, about 53.3 million people (Pew Research Center, 2024) - a reminder that policy here is judged by two questions, not one: did it work, and what did it cost in freedom?

The rubric (0–24)

Component	Points
Goal attainment (×2)	0–8
Primary-outcome effect	0–4
Unintended consequences	0–4
Evidence quality	0–4
Course-correction	0–4

Bands: A 21–24 · B 17–20 · C 13–16 · D 9–12 · F 0–8. Too new for data → we withhold the grade and say so.

The hard rules

Every explainer steelmans the idealist case in its proponents' own framing; gives the realist counter-case with cited evidence; shows predicted vs. measured outcomes with caveats (confounders, sample limits, study disagreement); runs a Liberty check naming competing freedoms evenhandedly; and closes on the real tradeoff, not a foregone verdict. We cite everything to a verifiable primary source, never invent quotes, use public records only, and label every page commentary. When the evidence favors the idealist policy, we say so plainly.

Grading individuals

Officials are graded only on outcome-tied public acts linked to policies graded here, weighted by role centrality (author > prime cosponsor > floor vote > stated position) and by how directly the measured outcome flowed from the act, plus course-correction credit. No ideology, party, or private life. See the scorecards and the Allies directory.

A note on the brand name

“WAKE the WOKE” is combative, and that sits in tension with our aim to persuade rather than ridicule. It stays flagged for the owner's decision. Ridicule appears here only when the evidence earns it.

114 explainers in this build.