Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less