With politics as polarized and divisive as ever and the holiday season approaching, many of us will have difficult interactions with problematic family members. Does calling out your problematic family members benefit you or our political climate? Or does it do the opposite -- worsening familial relationships and political climate?
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

A vibrant soccer ball rests on a lush green field inside an empty stadium, capturing the essence of sports.
The Beautiful Game’s Betrayal
Jan 22, 2026
The City of Angels has a year that some might want to forget. A fiery beginning followed by an unjust summer led those who lived in Los Angeles to a mindset of fear and vulnerability.
Even more so, a majority of the city’s sports teams turned their back on the people when they needed them most. Within Carson, Calif., the Major League Soccer side, the Los Angeles Galaxy, just ended their 2024 campaign with a championship. After such a momentous year, the following a turn for the worse. A 2025 season filled with disappointment and an absence of winning was only further tainted by the club’s choice of silence when ICE and federal took to the streets of Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles Galaxy has always prided themselves in being trailblazers in the league. They have a strong Latino fanbase and incorporate several Latino traditions into their games and culture. However, the feeling of reassurance and diversity seemed to have vanished in the 2025 season. In June of this year, the Trump administration gave the green light for immigration officials to swarm Los Angeles, beginning a surge of raids throughout the city. Many fought back as agents tried to take undocumented citizens from their families and lives.
Much like the L.A. Dodgers, who also had their share of controversy with ICE, the team has such a strong Latino root and most fans imagined that the Galaxy would release some sort of statement condemning the actions by ICE and reassure their fans. However, it never happened. The club never said something that cemented their position on the matter and this silence left several fans disappointed and afraid.
In the north end of the club’s home stadium, Dignity Health Sports Park, lies the supporter’s section group “Angel City Brigade” or ACB. Members of the group felt disgusted that the club they love and support did not reciprocate those emotions back to them. Randy
Hernandez, a capo of ACB, was one of the many leadership members of ACB that has been very vocal of their thoughts about how the club and organizations handled the issue. He said, “The L.A. Galaxy community has historically been a diverse community rooted in traditions from abroad where soccer is a religion. L.A. Galaxy fans have always been pro-immigrant because we are all immigrants, kids of immigrants, or grandchildren of immigrants.” He and other members of ACB organized boycotts, statements, and massive banners that were to be waved during the games.
Another fan who took issue with the silence is long-time season-ticket member, Matthew Felix. There have been several lows for fans like Felix in the past decade, but he expressed that this was a new low for the club. He explained, “In my opinion, the L.A. Galaxy handled the whole situation really poorly. When the community that supports them the most was under attack, they decided to stay silent…The Galaxy makes a lot of money off of the Hispanic community as they are from Los Angeles. They host things like Mexican Heritage and Central American Heritage Nights. When you’re making money off of a certain group of people, I feel like you kind of have to say something in support of them.”
It also does not help that the team’s crosstown rival, LAFC, put out a statement in support of the immigrant community and expressed that the club stood by them during such difficult times. This sort of support and display of community from a rival further ignited the resentment fans of the Galaxy felt. Some fans have even stopped coming to games altogether as a form of protest against the team and front office. Others kept going to games throughout the season, but it never did feel the same for them
One fan, Sebastian Constantino, described his disappointment in the team he loves most. “I was very disappointed in the L.A. Galaxy front office, in the way they handled everything.
One thing that stood out to me was the banning of a fellow supporter group member for bringing a “banner” when they had no solid evidence that it actually was him, and I feel that it was just a punishment for the article that they worked on with the L.A. Times during this time,” Constantino described.
The Beautiful Game’s Betrayal was first published on California Latino News and was republished with permission.Noah Quezada is a student at CSULB
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

us a flag on white concrete building
Photo by Adam Michael Szuscik on Unsplash
What Really Guides Lawmakers’ Decisions on Capitol Hill
Jan 21, 2026
The following article is excerpted from "Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."
Despite the efforts of high school social studies teachers, parents, journalists, and political scientists, the workings of our government remain a mystery to most Americans. Caricatures, misconceptions, and stereotypes dominate citizens’ views of Congress, contributing to our reluctance to engage in our democracy. In reality, the system works pretty much as we were taught in third grade. Congress is far more like Schoolhouse Rock than House of Cards. When all the details are burned away, legislators generally follow three voices when making a decision. One member of Congress called these voices the “Three H’s”: Heart, Head, and Health—meaning political health.
Heart. People who make decisions that affect others' lives and well-being are usually first guided by their own beliefs and values. When asked how he made decisions, a GOP House lawmaker said, “I’m guided by the values my parents taught me. What’s the most common-sense, ethical way to solve the problem?”
There’s no directory listing which legislators are mostly guided by conscience and which are motivated by other factors. Generally, senators—who enjoy six-year terms—are expected to demonstrate a “leadership” model of decision-making, sometimes bucking public opinion. This is by design: the Senate was intended to be a more deliberative, thoughtful institution, acting as a check on the House, which could be swayed by the public's hot passions.
Head. Working in Congress is a policy wonk’s dream. You have access to every study ever written, every expert in the country, and every federal, state, and local agency. And if that is not enough, the largest library in the world—the Library of Congress—is across the street from your office. Most legislators and staff enjoy researching public policy problems. This is why they chose this career—to analyze complex issues and develop approaches or solutions to improve the human condition.
Legislators are constantly seeking unbiased, independent research to inform their decisions. There are both practical and political reasons for this: in addition to guiding their thinking, independent studies that justify a policy also provide them with political cover. A member of Congress told me he had changed his position on climate change, from opposing mandatory caps on emissions to supporting them. Since he represented a coal-producing district, I asked him what contributed to his change in thinking. “I read the 300-page United Nations study on the topic,” he said.
Health (political). Politics is often considered a dirty word, but what citizens and pundits fail to realize is that when a legislator factors “politics” into a decision, it means they are listening to constituents. Usually, a legislator’s personal beliefs and the general attitudes of his constituency are not far apart—that is why they got elected. Yet most decisions do not affect a majority of the citizenry in a district or state; they tend to impact small groups in significant ways. For example, Medicare reimbursement rates primarily affect doctors, research funding for a particular disease primarily affects those afflicted with the illness, and visa limits for high-skilled foreign workers primarily concern technology companies.
There may be major issues—such as war in the Middle East or immigration—which engender opinions in nearly everyone. But those issues are rare in the day-to-day world of government. Most decisions affect a narrow class of people, which makes the politics easy to assess. When faced with a new issue, one House chief of staff said he first asks, “Who’s for it, who’s against it?”
There are many ways legislators assess the political impact of a decision, but for each, they conduct a political analysis of how it affects voters’ perceptions in their district or state and how it might affect their next election. It’s important to note that even legislators in safe districts are strongly influenced by their constituents’ views. This is for two reasons. First, they feel an ethical responsibility to honestly represent the people who elected them (it sounds corny, but they do). Second, every politician wants to be loved by everyone—that’s part of why they went into politics. One Representative told me, “I sometimes think that every member of Congress is a middle child who is still trying to please his father.”
This collision between cynical popular belief and the reality of public service became clear to me in the most surprising setting: talking to congressional interns. During my 13 years on Capitol Hill, I always supervised the interns in the office. And at the end of their three-month tenure, I always asked the same question: “What belief or stereotype about Washington or Congress was debunked during your time here?” The most common response went something like this: “I was surprised by how much you all wrestle with trying to do the right thing, and how much you worry about the impact of your decisions on constituents.” If you spend a little time in the real Washington—not the one shown on the front pages or in movies—you’ll come to the same conclusion.
Bradford Fitch is the former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, a former congressional staffer, and author of “The Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."
Keep ReadingShow less

President Donald Trump speaks to the media aboard Air Force One en route to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 4, 2026.
(Joe Raedle/Getty Images/TNS)
Trump isn’t interested in being honorable — he’d rather be feared
Jan 21, 2026
A decade ago, a famous and successful investor told me that “integrity lowers the cost of capital.” We were talking about Donald Trump at the time, and this Wall Street wizard was explaining why then-candidate Trump had so much trouble borrowing money from domestic capital markets. His point was that the people who knew Trump best had been screwed, cheated or misled by him so many times, they didn’t think he was a good credit risk. If you’re honest and straightforward in business, my friend explained, you earn trust and that trust has real value.
I think about that point often. But never more so than in the last few weeks.
In all of the debates about foreign policy — where people throw around terms like realism, internationalism, isolationism, nationalism, this ism, that ism — one word tends to draw eyerolls from ideologues: “honor.” Specifically national honor.
President Trump and many of his admirers believe he’s “restoring” America’s reputation on the world stage. Trump himself often says that we’ve “never been more respected.” It’s never exactly clear what he bases this on, aside from what foreign leaders purportedly tell him in private. Public opinion surveys are at best a mixed bag.
The deeper confusion is about what he means by “respect.” From the way Trump talks about geopolitics, it’s clear he equates “respect” with a Machiavellian mix of “fear,” “strength” or “power.” That is one definition. For instance, many people respect China as an economic and military power. But such respect is not synonymous with “admiration.” Everyone respects North Korea as a nuclear power. But few non-deranged people admire the Hermit Kingdom in any other way.
What’s missing is the concept of honor. One of the great critiques of the idea that economics is everything — that we are all mere Homo economicus, maximizing income to the exclusion of all else — is that people value other things: love, family, morality, integrity, faith and, yes, honor. Trump’s theory of geopolitics could be described as Patria economicus (though Latin purists might object). It’s a kind of realism that simply says the nation-state should do whatever it can to get the best deals for itself (or for the Homo economicus in Chief).
This seems to be what Trump’s getting at when he says the only thing that can constrain him on the international stage is “my own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
His aide, Stephen Miller, insists that “the real world” is “governed by strength … is governed by force … is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.” According to this logic, we can take Greenland from Denmark — and the Greenlanders themselves — because we can. The only question is whether it will be “the easy way” or “the hard way,” as Trump recently said.
We should acknowledge the truth of this. Put aside questions of law, the Constitution or policy. It’s true we could take Greenland militarily, gangster-style. It’s also true that I can take a gun and rob my friends. Again, legality aside, the question I have is, “would that be honorable?” In Trump’s terms, the seizure of Greenland would make us more “respected,” but it would not make us more honored. We would be betraying our allies (and ideals), and not just Denmark but all of NATO, by breaking our word. For what? Territory. Territory we have every right to use by treaty already. Would we be prouder of our military once it became an instrument of mercenary conquest?
St. Augustine once asked, “Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?” George Washington was passionate about notions of honor and virtue. In his farewell address, he insisted that we should honor our commitments “with perfect good faith.”
An America that honors its commitments has allies who will honor theirs. An America that betrays her commitments by force or by the threat of force will find the cost of political capital exorbitantly expensive at the earliest opportunity.
The administration reads the Monroe Doctrine as a warrant for the president to do as he likes on his turf and, in Trump’s mind, Greenland is our turf. That is not how President Monroe saw things. In his first inaugural, Monroe declared, “National honor is national property of the highest value. The sentiment in the mind of every citizen is national strength. It ought therefore to be cherished.”
Most Americans are right to want their country to be powerful. But they should also want our country to be good. Aristotle believed that true honor is reserved not just for power or glory, but virtue. Those who prize virtue will find little comfort in Trump’s assurance that he is only constrained by his own morality.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less

A sculpture of a hand holding an oil rig stands outside the headquarters of Venezuela’s national oil company.
Why Unlocking Venezuelan Oil Won’t Mean Much for US Energy Prices
Jan 21, 2026
In the wake of U.S. forces’ arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, U.S. President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is taking over Venezuelan oil production.
In addition, the U.S. has blockaded Venezuelan oil exports for a few weeks and seized tankers that reportedly escaped from the blockade.
To understand what’s happening and what it means for U.S. consumers and the American energy industry, The Conversation U.S. checked in with Amy Myers Jaffe, a research professor at New York University and senior fellow at Tufts University who studies global energy markets and the geopolitics of oil.
What is the state of Venezuela’s oil industry and how did it get to this point?
Venezuela’s oil industry has experienced profound turmoil over its history, including a steady downward spiral beginning in 1998. That’s when a worldwide economic downturn took global oil prices below $10 per barrel at the same time as the Venezuelan public’s growing interest in reasserting local control of the country’s oil industry ushered in populist President Hugo Chávez.
In April 2002, Venezuelans took to the streets to protest the appointment of Chávez loyalists to replace the top brass of the national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela. The chaos culminated in an attempted coup against Chavez, who managed to retake power in a matter of days. Petróleos de Venezuela’s workers then went out on strike, prompting Chávez to purge close to 20,000 top management and oil workers. That began a brain drain that would last for years.
In 2007, Chávez, standing in front of a banner that read “Full Oil Sovereignty, The Road to Socialism,” took over ExxonMobil’s and ConocoPhillips’ oil-producing assets in Venezuela. The companies had declined to accept new oil contracts at radically less profitable terms than they had in previous years.
After Chávez’s death in 2013, national economic chaos accelerated. By 2018, reports began to surface that roving gangs, as well as some oil workers struggling to survive, were stripping the industry of its valuable materials – computers, copper wiring, and metals and machinery – to sell on the black market.
U.S. sanctions added to the mix over the years, culminating in a drop in Venezuelan oil production to 840,000 barrels a day in 2025, down from the 3.5 million barrels a day it was able to produce in 1997.
A handful of international oil companies remained in the country throughout the turmoil, including U.S.-based Chevron, French-Indonesian firm Maurel and Prom, Spanish firm Repsol, and Italian firm ENI. But the political chaos, sanctions and technical mismanagement of the oil industry have taken a heavy toll.
Some estimates say that the country wouldn’t need a lot of investment to increase production to about 1 million barrels a day by 2027. But other analysts say that immediate investment of as much as $20 billion could only raise Venezuela’s production to 1.5 million barrels a day.
Most of the oil in Venezuela is very heavy oil and requires expensive processing to be able to be refined into usable products. The country’s leaders have claimed to have 300 billion-plus barrels of reserves.

The El Palito refinery in Puerto Cabello, Venezuela, is owned by the country’s national oil company. Jesus Vargas/picture alliance via Getty Images
What effect does Venezuela’s production have on prices that U.S. consumers pay for gasoline, natural gas, gas-fired electricity and other petroleum products?
In general terms, U.S. gasoline prices are influenced by global crude oil market levels. Sudden changes in export rates from major oil-producing countries can alter the trajectory for oil prices.
However, Venezuela’s recent export levels have been relatively small. So the immediate effect of changes in Venezuelan oil export levels is likely to be limited. Overall, the global oil market is oversupplied at the moment, keeping prices relatively low and in danger of falling further, even though China is stockpiling large oil reserves.
Venezuela did not export any natural gas. In the long run, a fuller restoration of Venezuela’s oil and gas industry could mean oil prices will have difficulty rising as high as past peaks in times of volatility and could potentially fall if oil demand begins to peak. And Royal Dutch Shell and Trinidad and Tobago National Gas Company have plans to develop Venezuela’s offshore Dragon natural gas field, adding to an expected glut of liquefied natural gas, often called LNG, in global markets in the coming years.
How much oil is coming to the U.S. now, and how would more imports of Venezuelan oil affect U.S. refiners?
The U.S. Gulf Coast refining center is known for its capability to process heavy, low-quality oil like Venezuela’s into valuable products such as gasoline and diesel. Already, refineries owned by Chevron, Valero and Phillips 66 are bringing in Venezuelan oil.
Before the U.S. seized Maduro, most of Venezuela’s exports were going to China, though about 200,000 barrels a day were coming to the United States under Chevron’s special license.

An oil tanker approaches a dock in Maracaibo, Venezuela, on Jan. 10, 2026. Margioni Bermúdez/AFP via Getty Images
Trump has said the U.S. will get between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil from Venezuela, to be used “to benefit the people” of both countries. That’s about two or three days’ worth of U.S. oil production, and between one and two months’ worth of Venezuelan production. What effects could that have for the U.S. or Venezuela?
Some 20 million to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan crude oil is currently piled up in Venezuela’s storage tanks and ships in the aftermath of the U.S. blockade. Exports needed to resume quickly before storage ran out to prevent oil production facilities from needing to shut down, which could then require lengthy and expensive restart procedures.
The United States has been a major exporter of petroleum products in recent years, reaching 7.7 million barrels a day at the end of 2025.
Processing more Venezuelan oil might help make U.S. Gulf Coast refineries a bit more profitable by making more money on their refined products exports. But since there was no shortage of products in the U.S. market, I don’t expect consumers to see much savings.
But U.S. refineries only have so much capacity to refine heavy oil like Venezuela’s. And they have long-term contracts for oil from other suppliers. So they won’t be able to handle all of those 30 million to 50 million barrels. Some of it will either have to be sold abroad or put in the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve.
How does a potential increase in Venezuelan oil production affect U.S. domestic oil producers?
Over time, the impact of the restoration of Venezuelan oil production on oil prices is hard to predict. That’s because it will likely take a decade or more before Venezuela’s oil production levels could be fully restored. Long-term oil prices are notoriously tricky to forecast.
Generally speaking, U.S. shale production rates and profitability benefit when oil prices are above $50 a barrel, as they have been since 2021. U.S. oil production rose to 13.8 million barrels per day for the week ending Dec. 26, 2025, up slightly from the end of 2024. Forecasts suggest a slight increase in 2026 as well, if oil prices stay relatively flat.
Longer term, all bets are off, since the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC – a group of countries that coordinate global petroleum production and sales – has a history of telling members not to increase production when they add new oil fields, which sometimes leads to so much disagreement that a price war erupts.
The last time Venezuela moved to increase its production significantly, in the 1990s, oil prices sank below $10 a barrel. Major OPEC members like the United Arab Emirates have been expanding capacity in recent years, and others with large reserves like Libya and Iraq aspire to do the same in the coming decade as well. The UAE has been asking the group for permission to increase its production, causing difficulties in the group’s efforts to agree on what their total production and target oil price should be. That could be good news for consumers, if OPEC disunity leads to higher supplies and falling prices.
Some commentators have suggested China could be the biggest loser if shipments of Venezuelan oil shift West and away from discounted sales to China. How does the current situation affect China’s energy security and geostrategic considerations?
China’s oil imports have been averaging about 11 million barrels per day, with about 500,000 to 600,000 of that coming from Venezuela. Iran and Russia are among China’s largest oil suppliers, and both countries’ industries face tightening U.S. sanctions. There is enough oil available on the global market to provide China with what it wants, even if it doesn’t come from Venezuela.
The real question is about China’s overall response to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Beijing’s initial reaction to Maduro’s removal was fairly muted. In a Dec. 31, 2025, speech, however, China’s President Xi Jinping said China’s defense capabilities and national strength had “reached new heights” and called for the “reunification of our motherland.” In light of the U.S. intervention in the Americas, China may see a justification to move more aggressively toward Taiwan.
Why Unlocking Venezuelan Oil Won’t Mean Much for US Energy Prices was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















