After the 2016 election, journalist Monica Guzman heard nonstop from her fellow liberals that Trump voters were awful. But her parents — Mexican immigrants like her — were Trump voters, and they were nothing like what she was hearing. So, that piqued her curiosity: Instead of separating herself from people she disagreed with, she devoted herself to asking WHY they believed what they did. Now, it’s the focus of her new book, “I Never Thought of It That Way.” Monica, the director of digital and storytelling at Braver Angels, a grassroots organization dedicated to bridging the partisan divide, joins Glenn to discuss where the divide came from, where the media went wrong, and what every American must do to overcome it. And they find they agree on much more than any polarized stereotypes would have predicted.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
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
Recommended
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
Musk for speaker of the House? It’s not as crazy as it seems.
Dec 23, 2024
On Dec. 19, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) floated the idea of Elon Musk being the speaker of the House after the billionaire tech businessman publicly opposed a bipartisan bill to avert a government shutdown.
As crazy as that might sound, some fellow Republicans support the idea, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.). She said that shewould be open to supporting Musk for speaker, an idea proposed by other Republicans as Congress barrelled towards government shutdown Friday night.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also endorsed Musk for speaker, though he added that he would also be happy with Musk’s partner in the Department of Government Efficiency, Vivek Ramaswamy, taking up the role. He told talk show host Benny Johnson, “Let them choose one of them, I don't care which one, to be their Speaker,” Lee said. “That would revolutionize everything; it would break up the firm.”
And, of course, Democrats were outraged and started trolling President-elect Donald Trump by calling Musk the “real president.”
“The US Congress this week agreed to fund our government,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on Wednesday. “Elon Musk, who became $200 BILLION richer since Trump was elected, objected. Are Republicans beholden to the American people? Or President Musk? This is oligarchy at work.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Recently elected Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) wondered to reporters on Thursday: “If Elon Musk is kind of cosplaying co-president here, I don’t know why Trump doesn’t just hand him the Oval Office, or Speaker Johnson should maybe just hand Elon Musk the gavel if they just want that billionaire to run the country.”
According to CBS News, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) joined the fray, repeatedly invoking “President Musk” while speaking with reporters on Thursday.
“Welcome to the Elon Musk presidency,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) wrote on X.
The concept of Musk for Speaker of the House is surely intriguing, evoking two questions:
- Is it legal?
- Has it ever been tried before?
The answer is yes on both counts.
On the first question, the U.S. Constitution does not require the speaker to be a member of Congress, although historically, every Speaker has been a House member.
As to whether it has ever been tried before, the answer is actually yes. For example, former Secretary of State Colin Powell was nominated in 2013 and 2015, and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Wis.) and Joe Biden were nominated in 2019.
It's certainly an interesting concept, but it hasn't happened yet.
We’d like to know what our readers think.
- What do you think about the idea of a speaker who is not an elected member of the House?
- Does it bother you that the richest man in the world with no elected experience can be speaker of the House?
- Given how dysfunctional Congress is, might it be a good idea to shake it up from the outside?
- If Musk became speaker, might that intimidate Trump? Could Trump handle becoming what some think could be a figurehead president, subservient to a younger, richer man? The balance is certainly complex, as is the relationship. Trump has already said he’s the man in charge. How will their dynamic evolve?
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More