Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A prejudice we can’t ignore

A prejudice we can’t ignore
Getty Images

Gates and Gerzon are co-founders of Philanthropy Bridging Divides, a transpartisan conversation with philanthropic leaders about how they can bridge ideological divides in America.

It is good that we are having important conversations about prejudices and implicit biases — racial, religious, sexual, linguistic, even educational. But we are missing one of the most important. If we don’t identify and address this prejudice, all the others are likely to get worse. The group being stereotyped, and sometimes denigrated, goes by a variety of names. Some of them sound neutral: “centrists,” “moderates,” “bi-partisans,” "trans-partisans." Other names are explicitly critical: “cowards,” “frauds,” “complicits," “wishy-washy.”


We are living through highly polarized times that are resulting in deep fractures within our families, our communities, and our nation. Deep biases and closed mindedness have eliminated the desire for those on the extreme left or the extreme right to seek any type of common ground. As former partisans who have become more moderate and centrist on most issues, we have personally experienced this prejudice. We have both been asked— “What happened to you?” — as if we had somehow lost our way. But all that happened was that we realized that an effective way to get things done in a divisive time is to work together and better understand the value of diverse perspectives.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

So we know how these millions of Americans feel - politically homeless, outright condemned or quietly disdained. These "moderates" or "centrists" are attacked from both sides. In the current culture wars, the warriors of the Left and Right consider them to be deserters, unwilling to join the fight against 'The Enemy' (whoever they define it to be). They are all too often under siege and are more likely to keep their opinions to themselves for fear of being attacked.

Those who won’t become card-carrying "progressives" or "conservatives" are more and more becoming politically homeless. The Left has a community and its partisan media. So does the Right. Inside these like-minded communities on both ends of the political spectrum, they defend each other, are offended by the same things, and reinforce each other's biases. But those in the center have no such community. CNN famously tried to become the network in between MSNBC and FOX and the architect of that strategy was just let go. People have become addicted to conflict.

Both Left and Right are at best confused by these renegades who insist on occupying the “middle” and at worst angered by them. For example, Joe Manchin and Susan Collins are both looked down upon by partisans in their own parties for trying to understand both sides and find middle ground.

The extremes claim the high ground in the Holy War, each certain that they are saving the country from the other side. It is amazing to see how similar their rhetoric can be. While these true believers consider themselves standing courageously against the “enemy,” they see the centrists as appeasers, unwilling to recognize the evil, existential threat posed by the "bad guys."

Even news programs discriminate against the moderate middle. The conventional approach is always point/counterpoint, pitting a “progressive” guest against a “conservative” one. The ostensible goal is “balance." The result is paired partisanship that excludes anyone who sees “both sides.” If you are a prominent conservative or liberal, you have a chance to be heard. But if you see the strengths and weaknesses of diverse perspectives, there is little place for you as a commentator on cable news. In fact, we have both been told by network insiders that producers don't want to hear reasonable people. They told us that, for ratings purposes, they need people to argue with each other, not to find "common ground."

The irony is that this looked-down upon group who refuse to become party ideologues are, in fact, more numerous than either the Left or the Right. Recent polls show that “Independents” consistently are a larger group than either “Democrats” or “Republicans.” Yet the “I’s” have very little representation in either the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate. Without a caucus of their own, they are forced to pick a side. If this exclusion happened to any other major demographic group, claims of discrimination and injustice would erupt. Instead, the voices of those who are affected by this partisan prejudice remain virtually unheard.

We are raising our voices now because we want political dialogue to be robust, vigorous, and inclusive. Just as we do not want to shut out liberal or conservative viewpoints, we do not want moderate perspectives to be silenced either. We believe what is best for our country, and best for each of us, is prioritizing the whole truth — not half-truths divided along ideological lines. On most issues, the strident voices on the Left and Right seem to care more about twisting the facts to "win" the debate, or the election, rather than finding the optimal shared-value solutions for America.

The whole political spectrum, not just the Right and the Left, needs to be heard. The United States depends on it. So if you agree with us, please raise your voice too.

Read More

Large Bipartisan Majorities Oppose Deep Cuts to Foreign Aid

The Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland releases a new survey, fielded February 6-7, 2025, with a representative sample of 1,160 adults nationwide.

Pexels, Tima Miroshnichenko

Large Bipartisan Majorities Oppose Deep Cuts to Foreign Aid

An overwhelming majority of 89% of Americans say the U.S. should spend at least one percent of the federal budget on foreign aid—the current amount the U.S. spends on aid. This includes 84% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats.

Fifty-eight percent oppose abolishing the U.S. Agency for International Development and folding its functions into the State Department, including 77% of Democrats and 62% of independents. But 60% of Republicans favor the move.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Super Bowl of Unity

A crowd in a football stadium.

Getty Images, Adamkaz

A Super Bowl of Unity

Philadelphia is known as the City of Brotherly Love, and perhaps it is fitting that the Philadelphia Eagles won Sunday night's Super Bowl 59, given the number of messages of unity, resilience, and coming together that aired throughout the evening.

The unity messaging started early as the pre-game kicked off with movie star Brad Pitt narrating a moving ad that champions residence and togetherness in honor of those who suffered from the Los Angeles fires and Hurricane Helen:

Keep ReadingShow less
The Paradox for Independents

A handheld American Flag.

Canva Images

The Paradox for Independents

Political independents in the United States are not chiefly moderates. In The Independent Voter, Thomas Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali make it clear that independents are basically anti-establishment. They have a "mindset" that aims to dismantle the duopoly in our national politics.

I have previously written about different ways that independents can obtain power in Washington. First, they can get elected or converted in Washington and advocate with their own independent voices. Second, they can seek a revolution in which they would be the most dominant voice in Washington. And third, a middle position, they can seek a critical mass in the Senate especially, namely five to six seats, which would give them leverage to help the majority party get to 60 votes on policy bills.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat

A single pawn separated from a group of pawns.

Canva Images

The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat

Excerpt from To Stop a Tyrant by Ira Chaleff

In my book To Stop a Tyrant, I identify five types of a political leader’s followers. Given the importance of access in politics, I range these from the more distant to the closest. In the middle are bureaucrats. No political leader can accomplish anything without a cadre of bureaucrats to implement their vision and policies. Custom, culture and law establish boundaries for a bureaucrat’s freedom of action. At times, these constraints must be balanced with moral considerations. The following excerpt discusses ways in which bureaucrats need to thread this needle.

Keep ReadingShow less