Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A spark of illumination

A spark of illumination
Getty Images

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

These are dark times for our democracy. We have separated into camps that are convinced that the other side is not just wrong, but evil. But even in the darkness, sometimes bright sparks of illumination appear.


We were encouraged to see two governors, one a Republican and one a Democrat, recently make a joint appearance on CNN discussing their ‘Disagree Better’ initiative. Spencer Cox is the Republican Governor of Utah and chair of the National Governors Association. Jared Polis is the Democratic Governor of Colorado and NGA’s vice chair. True, neither of them are household names. Neither commands attention from the national press. But what they have done is a spark of light that should not go unnoticed.

The initiative came about after the recent NGA meeting where most republican governors declined to attend, breaking long-time tradition. “If we’re ever going to find our better angels again, it has to start with us setting the example of how to disagree better,” Cox said. “A bipartisan organization in a partisan world is always going to struggle, there’s no question about that.” You can read more here.

Polis, perhaps awkwardly, raised the issue of abortion. He made the point that Democrats don’t think that abortion is ‘good’ and they’d like to find a way to minimize it. And yet, this is language that comes directly from former President Bill Clinton, who famously said that he believed abortion should be legal, safe and rare. And yet, Polis was attacked by some in his own party for being willing to have a conversation that did not fit into the neat political calculation of our time-Democrats are in favor of abortion and Republicans are opposed to it.

Bridging divides is hard work, and it invariably opens up those trying to do so to attacks from their ‘side’. In an extremely polarized time, the very thought of trying to find middle ground, or even to understand another perspective, is extremely politically perilous.

As two advocates for breaking out of our partisan straight-jackets we applaud this effort and think that Cox and Polis can do even more.

Just as these two have paired up and will continue to speak out together, why not challenge other governors to pair up as well and replicate the dialogue that Cox and Polis have modeled? There are 26 Republican Governors and 24 Democratic Governors, so there is a huge opportunity to model a new approach to disagreement and finding shared ground. Some pairings that could be illuminating are Wes Moore (D-MD) and Sara Huckabee (R-AR), JB Pritzker (D-IL) and Eric Holcomb (R-IN), and Janet Mills (D-ME) and Mike DeWine (R-OH).

Not every governor will be a hyper-partisan warrior over the next 14 months, so we can certainly rule out Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis. But most governors are very much focused on how they can make their states better, which includes working with diverse coalitions. During what will undoubtedly be a rancorous and unpleasant election year, these cross-partisan conversations would remind voters that we are not as divided as we might be led to think.

Another idea is that the NGA could promote a ‘Better Arguments’ initiative. They could challenge states to develop community-wide and state-wide processes where people could come together in safe, civic space to talk about how they felt about the issues of the day, but do so in a way that promoted connection and empathy, not alienation and anger. [Funding should be easy to obtain from the philanthropic community.]

It is a perilous time to step on to the thin ice of understanding and sympathizing, so we should applaud the conversation that Cox and Polis have initiated and find ways to support it and expand it. They are going against the political grain at just the right time and embodying true patriotism


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less