In this edition of #ListenFirstFriday, the 17-year-old founder of YAP Politics discusses efforts to bridge the polarizations between political affiliations.
Video: #ListenFirstFriday Yap Politics
#ListenFirst Friday Yap Politics
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
Dec 20, 2025
Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.
Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.
Take Ukraine as a case in point. In the peace talks on Ukraine this year, Trump has insisted that Russia “holds the cards” in the ongoing conflict. But if Russia does indeed hold them, it is not because of some immutable law of geopolitics. It is because the United States—and Trump himself—has ceded those cards by failing to fully back Ukraine’s defense.
Power in international relations is not simply a fixed hand dealt by fate. Instead, choices, commitments, and the willingness to stand by allies all shape it. By declaring that Russia holds the cards, Trump disregards the moral responsibility the United States bears to ensure that Ukraine is not left vulnerable to aggression.
This card-game metaphor strips away the human stakes, treating war and diplomacy as transactional contests. By contrast, principled leadership recognizes national purpose and moral duty. When leaders use only the language of leverage, they obscure the deeper truth: democratic nations have a duty to resist authoritarian expansion, not just calculate strength. Trump’s language thus reflects a broader erosion of social or humanitarian responsibility.
America’s role in the world is not defined by who holds the cards alone. Far more important is whether those cards are played in defense of freedom or surrendered to expediency.
Trump has used this metaphor countless times. He asserted that the United States “held the cards” in its trade war with China, basing his claim on the size of America’s consumer market. Yet the data contradicts this claim. Even as U.S. tariffs reduced Chinese exports to America by nearly 30%, Beijing redirected its goods elsewhere, fueling a record $1 trillion trade surplus. Exports to Europe and Southeast Asia rose significantly, demonstrating China’s ability to reroute supply chains and blunt the impact of U.S. consumer leverage.
Moreover, China has repeatedly used its dominance in rare earth minerals as a counterweight—a sector worth billions annually and vital to defense systems, semiconductors, and electric vehicles. By imposing export controls on rare earths and finished magnets, Beijing makes clear that leverage is not one-sided. The U.S. may have a vast consumer market, but China’s grip on critical materials and its ability to diversify trade partners show that America’s “cards” are far from decisive. Trump’s metaphor thus often clouds reality. Global trade leverage is fluid. China has proven adept at offsetting Trump’s strategic claims.
Of course, Trump also loves to claim leverage over Congress. His constant insistence that he “held the cards” reveals a deeper pattern: he treats constitutional checks not as guardrails, but as obstacles to be bulldozed. In 2025, he tried to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid—already approved by lawmakers—through a rare maneuver called a pocket rescission. He also deployed thousands of National Guard troops to cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago without the governor's consent. Courts later ruled these moves unlawful. He even fired independent agency officials at the Federal Trade Commission and other bodies, flouting statutory protections and claiming these actions proved executive leverage.
The reality, however, is more complex. Unlike the unilateral leverage Trump describes, real power is balanced by constitutional design. Courts have struck down several of his maneuvers, and even members of his own party questioned their legality. Congress retains the power of the purse, oversight authority, and the constitutional mandate to check executive overreach. Trump’s card-game metaphor focuses on unilateral action, whereas the constitutional system demands collaboration within shared powers. In truth, the cards are distributed by design in our Constitution, and democracy depends on respecting that principle.
Trump’s repeated use of the “holding the cards” metaphor may resonate with some as a symbol of dominance, but it ultimately fails to provide moral direction. Leadership is measured not by who bluffs or claims leverage, but by who upholds responsibility and principle.
Reducing governance to a card game overlooks the values that define America: freedom, trust, and a commitment to democratic institutions.
America needs leaders who play not just to win, but to serve the people and defend democratic values.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
campbells chicken noodle soup can
Photo by Girl with red hat on Unsplash
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
Dec 19, 2025
Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.
Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.
The facts are straightforward. Robert Garza, a former cybersecurity analyst, has sued Campbell's, alleging that Martin Bally, then a vice president and Chief Information Security Officer, insulted Indian workers, disparaged Campbell's foods as "s--- for f---ing poor people," and mocked consumers—all during a meeting intended to address Garza's compensation. The lawsuit claims Bally also bragged about coming to work under the influence of marijuana and repeatedly used explicit racial slurs. According to Garza, the recording supports his claims. After Garza reported the incident to his supervisor, Bally was dismissed.
Campbell acknowledged the recording's authenticity, condemned Bally's remarks as "vulgar, offensive, and false," and severed ties with him. The company now faces a state-level investigation concerning product quality and questions about possible retaliation.
What's most striking about Bally's alleged remarks isn't just the crude language or the ignorance. It’s the confidence with which he shared them. To belittle food that millions depend upon as "slop for the poor" reveals not only personal arrogance but internalized elitism and a profound disconnect from both consumers and the company's declared values. If this is how executives view their products and those who rely on them, no marketing campaign can bridge that gap.
For employees, especially those targeted by bigotry or scapegoating, the harm runs even deeper. Corporate culture doesn't merely flow downward; it seeps into everyday behavior, from missed advancement to subtle exclusion. When employees see that reporting misconduct can lead to retaliation, as Garza alleges, trust erodes quickly, and the damage lingers.
Consumers sense this contempt too. In an era of economic strain, the realization that leaders quietly mock customers' realities is more than a PR challenge; it's a breach of the social contract. It signals that the promise of a fair exchange is negotiable and all too fragile. If contempt destroys trust, the usual cycle of corporate contrition does little to repair it.
Crisis management has become rote: issue a statement, insist the offensive behavior doesn't represent the company, fire the offender, and announce an internal review. Campbell's followed this script and reaffirmed its commitment to quality. These actions matter, but they fall short of addressing deeper failures.
No executive rises to senior leadership in a vacuum. Bally's conduct was possible because a culture allowed him to advance while his attitudes went unchallenged or unnoticed. Such reality should prompt a more honest question: if a workplace can absorb and overlook contempt of this magnitude, what else has it normalized? What day-to-day habits have become so ingrained that the system itself sustains arrogance and exclusion?
If these questions expose the limits of routine corporate apologies, the next step is to consider what real accountability would require. Authentic accountability demands transparency that goes beyond formulaic statements and crisis scripts. Campbell’s, or any company, must move from symbolic gestures to real, structural change: independent audits of workplace culture, genuine opportunities for employees to reach senior leaders without fear of retaliation, and real consequences when retaliation occurs.
Diversity and anti-bias training may help, but they mean little without independent reporting channels, third-party oversight, and steadfast whistleblower protections. Recruitment and advancement should prioritize those who understand the realities of workers and consumers, not just candidates who fit the old leadership mold. Most challenging of all, product and marketing decisions should involve the consumers who actually use the brand. Respect is genuine only when it is participatory.
If Campbell's is sincere in its supposed gratitude for its customers, the first step toward repair is a willingness to share influence with those very people. Consumers hold more power than they realize. They can demand more than apologies and short-term fixes. Public trust isn't a performance; it's a responsibility. When leaders betray that trust, the only credible response involves actual culture change and consequences that reach into the structure of leadership.
Boycotts and social media outrage apply pressure. But real consumer advocacy expects independent review, measurable equity commitments, and transparency in hiring, retention, and advancement. It supports companies that protect whistleblowers and uphold these standards long after the headlines vanish. With all this in mind, the final question is whether redemption is possible—and if so, what it must look like.
The Campbell's scandal isn't just a corporate misstep; it points to a broader breach between the powerful and those who trust, labor for, and support them. If companies seek redemption, it won't come through slogans or glossy advertisements. It will have to emerge through actions that honor dignity in tangible, lasting ways.
If leaders can't replace contempt with genuine respect, self-reflection, and a humility fitting their responsibilities, the divide between the influential and everyday people will only widen. The consequences will outlast brand reputation or quarterly profits. They ripple through the moral integrity of public life. That growing divide is a test of who we are and what we're willing to accept from those who shape the literal and symbolic bread of our daily lives.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
When Leaders Put Ego Above Accountability—Democracy At Risk
Dec 18, 2025
What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.
When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.
Americans want leaders who embody honesty, humility, and respect — values we teach our children. When leaders abandon these qualities, the nation’s character suffers.
The president’s public behavior is defined by bullying and humiliation — mocking governors as “fat” or “ugly,” calling citizens “pigs,” and ridiculing reporters on live television. These are not displays of strength but symptoms of insecurity. Research shows ethical leaders demonstrate humility and accountability, not cruelty (Frontiers in Psychology).
The pandemic revealed the cost of ego. In October 2020, when hospitalized with COVID‑19, the president staged a balcony moment by removing his mask after leaving Walter Reed (BBC). What could have modeled humility became a performance of ego instead.
Ego unchecked is most dangerous in matters of war and peace. Leaders who bypass Congress or claim unilateral authority erode constitutional balance (Congressional Research Service). Oversight is not an obstacle; it is a safeguard.
A healthy ego gives courage. An inflated ego breeds arrogance, stifles collaboration, and destroys accountability. True accountability requires humility and the willingness to admit mistakes. Instead, ego‑driven leaders pursue personal ambition — as seen in legislation like the Big Beautiful Bill or the reversal of Roe v. Wade (NPR Illinois), both ignoring the voices of millions.
These actions reveal a deeper problem: when presidents face no effective checks, they learn to exploit gaps in accountability. Long before he came to the White House, Trump had already mastered the art of loopholes — in business, in taxes, and in government. He bragged about finding ways around rules, and each time institutions failed to enforce boundaries, his ego grew stronger, and his disregard for responsibility deepened.
Trump is a master of loopholes. In the past, he has bragged about it. He entered the White House with an already inflated ego and the practiced skill of exploiting gaps in accountability. He has never apologized or taken responsibility — he sues and moves on. If citizens could sue him directly, he would drown in lawsuits.
Ego is not confined to the presidency. Members of Congress who evade accountability and justices who fail to uphold their oaths also reveal how inflated egos corrode trust. When legislators place loyalty above courage, or when judges prioritize ideology over integrity, democracy suffers. This is not a partisan problem — it is a bipartisan failure of character.
The consequences of loopholes are not abstract. In a dialysis center, patients and nurses feel the weight of policies shaped by ego and neglect. When leaders exploit gaps in accountability, the result is cuts to care, understaffed facilities, and exhausted professionals. Citizens see firsthand that when ego drives decisions, it is their health, dignity, and trust that suffer.
History reminds us that unchecked leaders rarely stop at one abuse of power. When accountability is absent, ego expands. Past presidents who evaded responsibility left scars on the nation, proving that democracy cannot survive without boundaries.
Chaotic governance is not just embarrassing; it is dangerous. Spectacle displaces stewardship, and ego replaces service. Fiscal spectacle had consequences, with record deficits documented by ConsumerAffairs and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. These numbers reflect chaos rather than disciplined governance.
The damage extends beyond budgets. Ego corrodes institutions, dampens morale, and erodes trust. Staff and advisors navigate a hostile environment where flattery is demanded and honesty punished. Citizens disengage, exhausted by insults and spectacle.
Accountability requires courage from those closest to power. Cabinet members must stop offering fake praise simply to inflate the president’s ego. He nominated a cabinet for loyalty, not competence — a chorus of enablers feeding his insecurity. Weak leaders demand applause; strong leaders accept responsibility. Cabinet officials must replace flattery with honesty and confront ego rather than enable it.
We have observed citizens switching the television channel when governance becomes a spectacle of insults. This disengagement is not apathy; it is a reaction to chaos that undermines trust. The spectacle of insults is well documented, with dozens of personal attacks directed at officials, citizens, and reporters.
Americans want leaders with a healthy ego — one grounded in confidence, humility, and service. A healthy ego empowers others, listens to experts, and accepts responsibility. An unhealthy ego demands applause, silences dissent, and rewards flattery.
Finding solutions will not be easy. It will take persistence, courage, and vigilance because the president has rarely been checked. Ego, this inflated, resists boundaries. However, Congress is not powerless. Through its power of the purse, it can curb reckless spending. Through hearings and subpoenas, it can expose misconduct. And through its confirmation authority, the Senate can demand integrity in appointments. Oversight is not obstruction; it is the safeguard of democracy.
The Supreme Court must also act. Judicial review is not obstruction; it is a safeguard against ego‑driven overreach. The Court can revisit or overturn immunity doctrines that shield presidents from accountability. By reaffirming that no leader is above the law, the Court can restore balance and protect the integrity of our democracy.
The call is clear: Citizens must reclaim democracy. Your voice, your vote, your vigilance — these are the tools we must employ to restore integrity to leadership and help the president check his own ego. Accountability is not punishment; it is patriotism. Integrity is not optional; it is the cornerstone of a free society.
And citizens must go further: demand that your senators and representatives at the local, state, and national levels hold the president accountable. Democracy cannot survive if elected officials remain silent or complicit.
The presidency is not a stage for ego. It is a trust, sworn by oath, to serve the people. When leaders abandon accountability, they abandon democracy itself. Democracy will survive only if citizens persist, demand courage, enforce accountability, and refuse to be silenced.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership and government accountability.Keep ReadingShow less
Protesters hold signs outside a government building.
Photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash
Leaders Fear Accountability — Why?
Dec 15, 2025
America is being damaged not by strong leaders abusing power, but by weak leaders avoiding responsibility. Their refusal to be accountable has become a threat to democracy itself. We are now governed by individuals who hold power but lack the character, courage, and integrity required to use it responsibly. And while everyday Americans are expected to follow rules, honor commitments, and face consequences, we have a Congress and a President who are shielded by privilege and immunity. We have leaders in Congress who lie, point fingers, and break ethics rules because they can get away with it. There is no accountability. Too many of our leaders operate as if ethics were optional.
Internal fighting among members of Congress has only deepened the dysfunction. Instead of holding one another accountable, lawmakers spend their energy attacking colleagues, blocking legislation, and protecting party leaders. Infighting reveals a failure to check themselves, leaving citizens with a government paralyzed by disputes rather than focused on solutions. When leaders cannot even enforce accountability within their own ranks, the entire system falters.
Transparency in Congress has become a forgotten word. Leaders not only spin and change the subject, but they spread conspiracies, cover up, and deny—traits they apparently learned from the President to evade the truth and protect and shield him when he abuses power. President Trump has wielded hundreds of executive orders that test constitutional boundaries, including attempts to restrict birthright citizenship and expand presidential authority beyond constitutional limits, which legal experts warn could undermine checks and balances (ABC News; Tennessean). He has also used government powers to target more than 100 perceived enemies—through ICE arrests, investigations, and firings—in what NPR described as a sweeping campaign of retribution (OPB/NPR). Who dares to check the President? Who dares to hold him accountable for his actions that diminish our Republic?
Speaker Mike Johnson has likewise evaded truth and accountability. During a protracted government shutdown, he refused to reconvene the House, effectively holding Congress hostage and preventing members from voting on critical legislation. Analysts described this as a dereliction of duty that undermined representative government (BentGent). Johnson also faced bipartisan pressure over the release of Jeffrey Epstein investigation files, publicly claiming transparency while simultaneously shutting down the Rules Committee and canceling votes, a move criticized as an effort to avoid scrutiny (Politico; Southwest Journal).
With no accountability, Americans can see the quid pro quos, pay‑for‑play arrangements, favors extended to political allies, and the deference shown to billionaires and special interests. This visibility should trigger reform. Instead, it exposes a deeper failure: a political culture so hollowed out by privilege and immunity that consequences simply no longer apply. Recent scandals illustrate this pattern, from Miami’s no‑bid concession deal benefiting a national party finance chair to multimillion‑dollar checks securing Cabinet appointments in what watchdogs describe as Trump’s pay‑to‑play administration.
The Supreme Court has not fared better. Justices have accepted luxury trips, gifts, and favors from wealthy benefactors, raising questions about impartiality and ethics. Investigations by ProPublica have detailed undisclosed travel and relationships that test the boundaries of judicial ethics, while rulings on presidential immunity reported by SCOTUSblog have reshaped checks and balances in ways that embolden abuses of power. Accountability has been replaced by privilege, and the Court itself has become entangled in pay‑for‑play politics.
Underlying all of this is the outsized influence of billionaires and money in politics. In the 2024 elections, 150 of the wealthiest families contributed nearly $2 billion to influence outcomes, including Elon Musk ($133 million to Republicans) and Michael Bloomberg ($45 million to Democrats), as reported by the Washington Post. Research by Princeton shows that economic elites and organized interests have far more influence on policy outcomes than average citizens, while Pew Research documents the resulting collapse of public trust in government. Leaders fear accountability because it would expose these transactions, strip away privileges, and return power to the people.
When accountability is absent, the damage extends beyond leaders to citizens themselves. Trust erodes, corruption weakens institutions, and the government loses the ability to pass laws, enact policies, or respond to crises. Public services are destroyed, voices go unheard, and votes are suppressed. Citizens disengage, stop caring, and withdraw from civic life. Inequality and injustice deepen, social unrest grows, and the rule of law collapses. Democracy cannot survive when accountability is ignored.
Yet accountability is not punishment—it is a tool. Leaders must view accountability as a way to improve their leadership, sharpen decision‑making, build trust, and even strengthen approval rates. As a leader, I held myself accountable—the buck stopped with me. It was never difficult to confront my flaws and weaknesses because strong self-esteem and a genuine desire to serve led me to accept responsibility for outcomes. Accountability enhanced my leadership skills, making me stronger, more effective, and better equipped to make sound decisions, solve problems, and achieve organizational goals. Ignoring accountability was never an option. But leaders should not only hold themselves accountable; they must also hold one another accountable, including the President and the Supreme Court. Accountability will only work when it exists across all three branches of government.
Americans cannot afford to look away. If we want to dismantle dysfunction, we must confront the money behind it and demand accountability at every level of government. Only then can we restore integrity, enforce checks and balances, and reclaim democracy as for the people, by the people.
Ethics codes and transparency rules must be enforced. Checks and balances must be restored and reinforced. Campaign finance reform and stricter lobbying rules must limit billionaire influence. Citizens must vote, speak out, attend town halls, write letters, sign petitions, and participate in peaceful protests. Accountability makes for a fully functioning Congress that passes laws, enacts policies, and does the work of the people without chaos, obstruction, and self‑interest. Leaders should be judged not by how fiercely they cling to power, but by how courageously they accept responsibility.
Leaders may fear accountability, but without it, democracy cannot survive. When accountability is present, corruption recedes, transparency expands, and trust is restored. Free and fair elections, independent media, and ethical leadership will no longer be ideals on paper but realities in practice. Only then will democracy endure — and only then will government truly be for the people, by the people.
C. Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership and health care justice.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More