What's the difference between high conflict and good conflict? Find out as Convergence CEO David Eisner interviews NYT best-selling author Amanda Ripley about her book, "High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out."
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
What Democracy Demands of Its Leaders When Disasters Strike
Jan 14, 2025
An almost unimaginable tragedy is unfolding in Los Angeles, California. On Sunday, the Washington Post reported, "Four active fires in the Los Angeles region have burned over 40,000 acres — an area bigger than San Francisco … with flames claiming more than 12,000 structures and displacing tens of thousands.” Twelve people have lost their lives because of the fires.
Donald Trump’s response has been stunning, though not surprising. Instead of steadiness and solidarity, he has offered falsehoods, fictions, and blame. As in other things, he has departed from democratic traditions to which other Republicans have committed themselves.
Last week, even Florida’s Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, who has in the past used California and its Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom, as political foils, demonstrated respect for that tradition. On January 8, he said: “Our prayers are with everyone affected by the horrific fires in Southern California. When disaster strikes, we must come together to help our fellow Americans in any way we can.”
That same day, the president-elect responded in a very different way. He posted on Truth Social that “Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water…to flow daily into… “areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Using a demeaning nickname for California’s chief executive would have been bad enough. But to make matters worse, Trump’s reference to a “water restoration declaration” was pure fiction.
As Newsom’s Office pointed out, “There is no such document as the water restoration declaration.” Independent news sources agreed.
An ABC News station in California suggested that Trump might have been confused. It speculated that he may have been referring to a 2020 memorandum he signed aimed at “directing more water from northern California to central and southern California, which never took effect.” And even if it had, it “would not have made a meaningful impact on the water supply in the Los Angeles area.”
But from the start, Trump was not content just to spread misinformation. His January 8 post pointed the finger of blame at Newsom. As he put it, “He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt by giving it less water (it didn’t work!), but didn’t care about the people of California…He is the (sic) blame for this.”
Lest anyone missed the point, one day later, Trump called on Newsom to “resign” and repeated this is all his fault!!!” On Thursday, he called Newsom an “INCOMPETENT GOVERNOR.
Comedy Central’s Desi Lydic, among others, called out Trump, labeling him “one of the country’s leading blame producers.” She also tried to correct the record while taking a swipe a la Trump himself: “(T)he LA fires,” she noted, “have nothing to do with smelt. But in Trump’s defense… words are hard, and smelt only has one syllable, while climate change has three.”
Democracy is damaged when politics becomes a blame game, and presidential leadership in a democracy is always important, but never more so than when the nation confronts catastrophe. In such times, unity, not division, is the order of the day.
Presidents should rise above partisanship to provide it. Presidents of both parties have done just that, even if their efforts have sometimes misfired.
In fact, previous Republican presidents have set a high standard for what leaders should do and how presidents should talk to the nation when disaster strikes.
For example, recall President George W. Bush's words after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. In a televised address on September 16, 2005, Bush called on the nation to come together and made clear that his and his party’s “first commitment” was “to meet the immediate needs of those who had to flee their homes and leave all their possessions behind.”
“In the life of this nation,” he explained, “we have often been reminded that nature is an awesome force and that all life is fragile….Every time, the people of this land have come back from fire, flood, and storm to build anew …These trials …remind us… that we're tied together in this life, in this nation.”
At no time did Bush, whose own handling of the disaster was roundly panned, try to score political points. He refused to defect criticism or blame New Orleans’ Democratic Mayor Ray Nagin or Louisiana’s Democratic Governor Kathleen Blanco.
Instead, he did what democratic leadership demanded and promised to “listen to good ideas from Congress and state and local officials and the private sector…(and to) work with members of both parties.”
Bush followed the example set by his father in the aftermath of a devastating earthquake that struck San Francisco in 1989. It “damaged an estimated 18,300 houses… Another 963 were destroyed. The shaking also damaged nearly 2,600 businesses and wiped out 147. Tremors caused a portion of the upper deck of the Bay Bridge to collapse…. Forty-two people were killed.”
Even though San Francisco’s progressive Democratic Mayor Art Agnos had referred to a quick visit by Vice President Dan Quayle as a ”publicity stunt,” President George H. W. Bush did not fire back or criticize the Mayor.
In fact, he said, “I want the citizens of the San Francisco Bay area and its neighbors first to know that our hearts are with them as they face this terrible tragedy. And words can't adequately convey our sentiments… but I can say that we will take every step and make every effort to help the Bay Area in its hour of need.”
The president visited the city to be seen and photographed with the Mayor and other Democratic officials and praised the city and state of California for “pulling together." Bush committed the federal government to do all that was “necessary” to help a city that, thirty-five years later, President-elect Trump would dump on during the 2024 campaign.
In 2018, recalling what Bush did, Agnos called him a "true statesman" and a “president who cared about the entire country, and he showed it in the… (1989) earthquake.”
Finally, among modern presidents, Ronald Raegan set a high bar for how to behave during and speak about disasters big and small.
In 1982 when, as the Washington Post notes, “Northern Indiana's worst flooding in nearly 70 years had washed away crops, inundated houses and businesses and left more than 7,000 people homeless….” Raegan did not hesitate to show that he cared.
He went there and “clad in white shirt, crisp black suit and low-cut, rubber boots borrowed from a farmer…(stood) in a line of people to help pass sandbags up to the river's edge.” He quickly promised disaster aid.
Four years later, in the wake of the Challenger space shuttle explosion, Raegan did not blame NASA for the disaster. Instead, he quickly expressed his “great faith in and respect for our space program” and reassured them that “what happened today does nothing to diminish it.”
Raegan concluded his remarks by uttering truly memorable words about the astronauts who lost their lives: “We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God.’''
In our time, the most memorable thing about Trump’s response to the Los Angeles fires will be his eagerness, as he returns to the White House, to resume the role of “the Blamer in Chief.” Blaming may sometimes be necessary, but, in a democracy, people of all political faiths should do less blaming and more working together.Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Senators’ credibility will be judged alongside Trump’s Cabinet picks
Dec 27, 2024
There are roughly 1,200 positions in the federal government that require Senate confirmation, including the senior officials who make up the president’s Cabinet. The first Cabinet official was confirmed in 1789 when the Senate unanimously approved President George Washington’s nomination of Alexander Hamilton to be treasury secretary.
The confirmation or denial process is a matter of 100 senators making judgement calls to determine whether a nominee is professionally qualified, exhibits leadership skills, is ethically fit, is morally just, doesn’t carry “baggage” and has the temperament for the job.
The adage “patience is a virtue” will most likely be tested by President-elect Donald Trump, his nominees, senators and the public in 2025, as the Center for Presidential Transition notes the confirmation process lasts around five months.
As our senators determine the fate of Trump’s nominees, the credibility of the senators is as much on the line as are the candidates and Trump himself. Here’s the question: Will the senators judge each candidate based on what is best for America’s 335 million citizens (people before party) or make the confirmation process a show of obedience to the president and/or politics (party before the people)?
Peggy Noonan, revered columnist for the conservative Wall Street Journal, wrote on Dec. 19: “Republican Senators must approach the hearings with gravity because … they are life-and-death appointments.” Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal characterized Trump’s Cabinet picks as “unconventional,” “lacking expertise” and reflecting “his idiosyncratic ideological impulses”.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Two recent polls should be an alert to our senators and cause them to think twice before voting “yes” on a Trump nominee: 1) A Dec. 5-9 AP-NORC poll found only three in 10 Americans have confidence in Trump’s Cabinet picks and 2) a Fox News poll revealed 50 percent disapprove of the president-elect’s Cabinet selections (even though 93 percent of Fox News viewers identify as Republican).
The media has been paying close attention. Chuck Todd of NBC News identified Pete Hegseth (Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (for the Department of Health and Human Services) and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (for director of national intelligence) as a “low-character crowd.”
Other high-profile nominees under scrutiny include: Jay Bhattacharya, Pam Bondi, Tom Homan, Howard Lutnick, Linda McMahon, Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, Elise Stefanik and Russell Vought.
Let’s face the facts. Nominating and confirming good Cabinet members has never been a hallmark of America’s presidents and senators. For starters, Andrew Jackson fired all of his Cabinet members except his postmaster general.
Here’s a sample of other poor picks:
- John F. Kennedy dismissed CIA Director Allen Dulles, who botched the Bay of Pigs operation.
- Lyndon Johnson removed Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara for escalating the Vietnam War.
- Attorney General Richard Kleindienst and three White House associates (H.R. Haldeman, John Erlichman and John Dean) were released from duty by Richard Nixon for their involvement in the Watergate scandal.
- Gerald Ford terminated several Nixon holdovers in what became known as the Halloween Massacre.
- Jimmy Carter requested the resignation of his entire Cabinet (very few resigned).
- Ronald Reagan dismissed Anne Gorsuch, his EPA administrator, for mismanaging $1.6 billion in the hazardous waste cleanup program.
- When Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos proposed blocking federal aid designed for minority students attending college, George H.W. Bush quickly ended his employment.
- Bill Clinton discharged William Sessions, the FBI director and Mike Espy, the secretary of agriculture.
- George W. Bush booted Paul O’Neill, secretary of the treasury, and Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense.
- Barack Obama ousted CIA Director David Petraeus and Michael Flynn, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
- Trump also fired Flynn, who has the distinction of being terminated by two different presidents. More than 90 percent of Trump’s executive officers turned over during his first presidency.
- Joe Biden’s executive officer turnover rate stands at 71 percent.
Obviously, presidents and senators have not always made good decisions on Cabinet members. Turnover is costly and is an obvious sign of poor management and poor judgement. Period.
We can do better. Don’t sit idly by during the current confirmation process without expressing your thoughts to your senators.
After you’ve done your due diligence of examining the background of the 12 Cabinet picks identified above, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your two senators’ offices. A staff member for each will answer your call, whereupon you can apprise them of your pick thoughts, which will be relayed to your senators.
Witnessing how your senators vote on each nominee will tell you whether their judgement matches yours. as well as if they put the people before the party or the party before the people.
Don’t fret over Trump’s Cabinet nominations; take action now before it’s too late. As noted in the Book of Common Prayer: “speak now or forever hold your peace.”
Corbin is professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa
Keep ReadingShow less
Why distrust in powerful politicians is part of a functioning democracy
Dec 26, 2024
Surveys suggest that in many western democracies, political trust is at rock bottom. Scandals, corruption, faltering economies, conspiracy theories and swirling disinformation are all playing their part. But is it really such a bad thing for people living in a democracy to distrust their government?
In this episode of The Conversation Weekly, we talk to political scientist Grant Duncan about why he thinks a certain level of distrust and skepticism of powerful politicians is actually healthy for democracy. And about how populists, like Donald Trump, manage to use people’s distrust in political elites to their advantage.
Grant Duncan says most people don’t grow up thinking “Do I trust the government?” unless they’re asked by a pollster. And yet when things go wrong, he says, “we have good reason to stop and ask about promises kept or not kept”.
Duncan, who is from New Zealand, is currently a visiting scholar in politics at City St George’s, University of London in the UK. His research focuses on the problems with political trust and how to get better governments. He argues that in democracies, people are not supposed to trust their government.
"Democratic constitutions are built on the premise that you can’t trust anyone with power. That’s why we have separation of powers, why we have periodic elections, a free press, people monitoring constantly what’s going on, because we trust no one in a democracy with political power.“
Populists fill the gaps
Duncan says, for example, that there would have been no United States of America without the American colonists’ deep distrust of the government of King George III in England. Yet, he admits there is a paradox at the heart of democratic systems, which rely on trust to function. If you vote in a representative system, you’re "placing a huge amount of trust in a very small number of people who will pass laws and governments and make decisions on our behalf”, he says.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Duncan believes Donald Trump’s re-election as US president directly reflects the mood of political distrust in the country. Trump, alongside other populists from both the left and the right around the world, has exploited this paradox around representative government which means a small elite are entrusted with a lot of power.
“ Often what happens is that a large section of society feel that changes are going on around them that they don’t understand, they don’t like, they haven’t approved. And it only takes one smart leader to think, I can make political capital out of this by getting up on the hustings and saying, ‘I speak to you, the real people the forgotten people … I speak for you’.”
Getting better leaders
There are ways to improve the trust that people have in their democracies, and while it’s not just about blaming the government, Duncan believes those who wield power bear the much greater responsibility:
“If politicians and senior public servants are worried about how to rebuild public trust, the first thing they need to do is take a look in the mirror, because we need trustworthy leaders. We don’t want misconduct and scandals.”
Alongside that comes actually competently delivering public services, and ensuring people’s safety and security. And having leaders, who are conscious of their limitations, and transparent about the challenges they’re facing, particularly in the face of technological developments like artificial intelligence. Charismatic leaders aren’t going to come along and fix the problems for us, he says.
"I think we get too entranced by charisma and on the other hand maybe too angry about leaders who don’t meet our expectations. So we need a kind of dedication to the task of government because so much is going to change and we need to remember that political trust is not a thing that gets broken and rebuilt like a machine. It’s a human phenomenon that we all share in.“
Listen to the full episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast to hear Grant Duncan talk about his research on political trust.
Newsclips in this episode from CBS News, ABC News (Australia) and PBS Newshour, Sky News.
This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Gemma Ware, Mend Mariwany and Katie Flood. Sound design was by Michelle Macklem, and our theme music is by Neeta Sarl.
You can find us on Instagram at theconversationdotcom or via e-mail. You can also subscribe to The Conversation’s free daily e-mail here.
Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.
Ware is host of The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Keep ReadingShow less
Meet the change leaders
Dec 25, 2024
As the year ends, we’d like to share with you more than 40 interviews The Fulcrum produced in conjunction with CityBiz for the “Fulcrum Democracy Forum – Meet the Change Leaders” series.
The Fulcrum and CityBiz, a publisher of news and information about business, power, money, politics and people in 21 major U.S. markets, produced these insightful interviews with an array of talented democracy change leaders. The videos were shared nationally with thousands of CityBiz subscribers and across its social media channels. The podcasts have also been published in The Fulcrum and distributed through the Coffee Party/Citizen Connect social media platform with 970,000 followers.
Each of the change leaders interviewed drives and facilitates transformation daily within their organizations, their communities and the nation as a whole. They inspire and motivate others to embrace new ways of thinking, working and behaving — empowering citizens and strengthening our democracy.
As you listen, you’ll get a clearer vision of the diverse areas of practice these leaders are engaged in, all serving a common goal of creating a larger movement for healthy self-governance across the nation to strengthen our democratic republic. While varied in their approaches, they all have a clear vision of what the future should look like and, through their work, articulate this vision to millions of Americans across the country.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
For change to happen in our country, citizens must be inspired and motivated to become civically engaged.
Enjoy these interviews and become involved. In the words of the late President John F. Kennedy. “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country,”
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund. Balta is director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives for The Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More