Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

​​The American Schism in 2025: Understanding the Other Side

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Macomb Community College on April 29, 2025 at Warren, Michigan.

President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Macomb Community College on April 29, 2025 at Warren, Michigan.

Getty Images, Scott Olson

In distilling lessons from my research on  American Schism, I often refer to a secret sauce or magic formula that U.S. citizens deployed at times during our history to productively bridge major societal divisions. To be clear, in these periods, the rifts endured but relying on the formula’s specific ingredients led us to better outcomes as compared to other eras when this formula was abandoned. In the former moments, we often forged new policy solutions — in the latter, we often experienced violent episodes.

One of the three key elements of this magic formula is what I label deep empathetic listening (stay tuned to this series for future discussion of the other two elements). Sounding simple but too often forsaken today, this form of listening is not easy work. It is analogous to a routine practice from high school debate club: first, through research and critical thinking, one constructs a rational argument for a particular point of view supported by data and carefully vetted sources. Then, perhaps a week later, one is assigned the same but from the opposing point of view. It is perhaps not surprising that our civic discourse has collapsed today — with current communication methods and platforms such as social media, critically researched data is sparse while sanctimonious outrage is omnipresent.


Thus, I have taken refuge during the Trump 2.0 chaotic first 100 days to heed my own advice. Specifically, I have been engaging Trump supporters to better understand their perspectives. Hardly a homogenous group, many core MAGA enthusiasts have emerged from the stifled rage, accumulated over decades, and a consequent loss of trust in the establishment. I have alluded  frequently in this series to the pent-up acrimony that Trump successfully weaponized to build his base. Moreover, I have described why such animosity was justified: how can we possibly blame those who have suffered under an elite-mandated economic globalization wherein the fruits of the promised economic prosperity accrued disproportionately to the top 1%? To literally add insult to injury, the leaders of both political parties, as opposed to crafting better public policy, either ignored or displayed nothing but disdain in recent decades for the millions of Americans left behind.

The result is the cult-like adoration Trump receives amongst large swaths of Americans for attempting to finally put a stop to the carnage. Despite how much has been written about this in recent years, many elites have yet to recognize, much less come to terms with, their policy failures. Why are so many in the establishment in blunt denial of their responsibility? After all, globalization did not simply transpire, it was championed by the same bipartisan leaders that reaped its rewards while insulating themselves from its costs. In my view, Trump supporters in these groups must be vindicated since their reactions are rational given the devastating policy that has led to hallowed out rural areas, few prospects for young non-college-educated citizens, and an opioid crisis.

At the same time, there are past precedents that merit close examination to understand our present social polarization. Analogous to our current period, we have frequently experienced pendulum swings over our 250-year history between opposing elite and populist forces, each vying for power. This very dynamic animated the original American Schism wherein the Federalists and the Jeffersonians waged war. Examining how the derivative tensions have evolved across different points of our history can shed much light on our current crisis. One particularly insightful historical antecedent starts with the Gilded Age in the late 19th century when the grievances represented by the Farmers Alliance and the People’s Party were stridently expressed. These bottom-up movements did in fact lead to systemic changes, albeit a few decades later in the early 20th century Progressive Era. Similarly, in the face of the Great Depression, FDR-era reforms represented another pendulum shift from Wall Street to Main Street.

As a former CEO and marketing executive myself, I have more recently been engaging members of the business establishment who support Trump to better appreciate their viewpoint. I have heard some very lucid explanations that characterize Trump’s approach as a  needed strategic recalibration to redefine American power in an era of global uncertainty. While conceding the disruptive nature and recognizing the risks, many argue that Trump’s path is required to contain the China threat and push Europe to shoulder its own defense. Further, these supporters believe that shrinking the Federal government and pushing the locus of control down to the states is consistent with the model of Jeffersonian government envisioned by some of our founders.

Space here does not permit me to fully delineate their arguments but suffice it to say that many of these Trump supporters are people I greatly respect and admire, despite my disagreements with many of their views. But after having many of these conversations, one glaring contradiction stands out to me like a sore thumb. Namely, most of the administration's actions are simply not consistent with the professed objectives of this plan. Instead of reorienting or building anew the institutions necessary to implement this new direction, the actions so far observed seem much more intent on delivering the frequently promised retribution. There has been scant indication via word or deed that the administrative goal is to rebuild or reconstitute our American institutions — in fact, the entire focus has been on tearing them down and relishing in the resulting indignation in elite circles. Traditional conservative values require a healthy respect for institutions, a willingness to acknowledge that the accumulated knowledge contained therein is not easily replicated and should be challenged but not trampled upon. In a sentence, Trump 2.0 so far empirically resembles something much closer to a 1930s Stalinist purge of non-loyalists than a 1950s Eisenhower-led re-architecture of the post-WWII U.S. military.

I have asked my interlocutors how Trumpian retribution accomplishes the agenda they profess he is following. I have not as of yet heard any satisfying response. Perhaps, if I could see the Trump administration act more like a playwright than a critic, building something new in the wake of all they have destroyed, I might be more sympathetic to their arguments.

Seth David Radwell is the author of  “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation ” winner of last year’s International Book Award for Best General Nonfiction. He is a frequent contributor as a political analyst and speaker within both the business community and on college campuses both in the U.S. and abroad.

Read More

Temples and Test-Tubes

Silhouette of man stand on top of mountain and see in the night sky. Galaxy and space. Meditation and astrology. Esoterica and psychology.

Getty Images/Elements of this image furnished by NASA

Temples and Test-Tubes

Since I was old enough to speak, I have been questioning everything around me. The turquoise color of the ocean, what would happen if I slept on a cloud, the enticing smell of Mom’s “signature” box mac and cheese. Thankfully, these questions eventually evolved into more meaningful ones.

I grew up and continue to be a member of the Baháʼí Faith; therefore, the principles of unity, justice, and service guide the way I live my life. The Baháʼí Faith is a religion that strives to achieve a worldwide unification of all races, religions, and cultures. Founded in the 19th century, the religion teaches the oneness of God, the elimination of prejudice, harmony among religions, and the common origin of all past prophets of God.

Keep ReadingShow less

Angelica Salas’s Journey From Undocumented Immigrant to Community Leader at CHIRLA

Angelica Salas has long been a leading advocate for immigrant rights in Los Angeles. Since becoming Executive Director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) in 1999, she has transformed the organization into one of the most powerful immigrant-led advocacy groups in the country. Her leadership has redefined what grassroots organizing can look like, mobilizing communities around issues ranging from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to voter outreach and legal services.

Salas’s journey into activism is deeply personal. Born in Durango, Mexico, she arrived in the United States at the age of five, undocumented, to reunite with her parents who had migrated for work. Growing up in Pasadena, California, her family lived in the shadows of deportation until they were able to legalize their status. In 2008, Salas became a U.S. citizen, adding a powerful chapter to a story she shares with many of the people CHIRLA serves. Her own experience navigating the U.S. immigration system informs her commitment to building dignity, not dependency, in the immigrant rights movement. After graduating from Occidental College with a degree in history and sociology, Salas joined CHIRLA in 1995 and became its executive director just four years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
This Isn’t My Story. But It’s One I’ll Never Forget.

Children with American flags

This Isn’t My Story. But It’s One I’ll Never Forget.

My colleague, Meghan Monroe, a former teacher and trainer in the Dignity Index, went out to lunch with a friend on the 4th of July. Her friend was late and Meghan found herself waiting outside the restaurant where, to her surprise, a protest march approached. It wasn’t big and it wasn’t immediately clear what the protest was about. There were families and children marching—some flags, and some signs about America being free.

One group of children caught Meghan’s eye as they tugged at their mother while marching down the street. The mom paused and crouched down to speak to the children. Somehow, Meghan could read the situation and realized that the mom was explaining to the children about America—about what it is, about all the different people who make up America, about freedom, about dignity.

“I could just tell that the Mom wanted her children to understand something important, something big. I couldn’t tell anything about her politics. I could just tell that she wanted her children to understand what America can be. I could tell she wanted dignity for her children and for people in this country. It was beautiful.”

As Meghan told me this story, I realized something: that Mom at the protest is a role model for me. The 4th may be over now, but the need to explain to each other what we want for ourselves and our country isn’t.

My wife, Linda, and I celebrated America at the wedding of my godson, Alexander, and his new wife, Hannah. They want America to be a place of love. Dozens of my cousins, siblings, and children celebrated America on Cape Cod.

For them and our extended family, America is a place where families create an enduring link from one generation to the next despite loss and pain.

Thousands of Americans in central Texas confronted the most unimaginable horrors on July 4th. For them, I hope and pray America is a place where we hold on to each other in the face of unbearable pain and inexplicable loss.

Yes. It’s complicated. There were celebrations of all kinds on July 4th—celebrations of gratitude to our military, celebrations of gratitude for nature and her blessings, and sadly, celebrations of hatred too. There are a million more examples of our hopes and fears and visions, and they’re not all happy.

I bet that’s one of the lessons that mom was explaining to her children. I imagine her saying, “America is a place where everyone matters equally. No one’s dignity matters more than anyone else’s. Sometimes we get it wrong. But in our country, we always keep trying and we never give up.”

For the next 12 months as we lead up to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we’re going to be hearing a lot about what we want America to be. But maybe the more important question is what we the people are willing to do to fulfill our vision of what we can be. The answer to that question is hiding in plain sight and is as old as the country itself: join with others and do your part, and no part is too small to matter.

At our best, our country is a country of people who serve one another. Some may say that’s out of fashion, but not me. Someone is waiting for each of us—to talk, to share, to join, to care, to lead, to love. And in our time, the superpower we need is the capacity to treat each other with dignity, even when we disagree. Differences of opinion aren’t the problem; in fact, they’re the solution. As we love to say, “There’s no America without democracy and there’s no democracy without healthy debate and there’s no healthy debate without dignity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Party Lines
An illustration to symbolize two divided groups.
Getty Images / Andrii Yalanskyi

Beyond Party Lines

The American Experiment tested whether groups with diverse interests could unite under a declaration of common principles. In this moment, we face a critical juncture that tests whether distrust and political fervor could drive Americans to abandon or deny everything that unites us.

Henry Bolingbroke contends that party spirit inspires “Animosity and breeds Rancor.” Talking of his countrymen, he wrote, “We likewise derive, not our Privileges (for they were always ours) but a more full and explicit Declaration”; Whigs and Tories can unite on this alone. That Declaration of Ours was penned by Thomas Jefferson when his colonists repelled the redcoats at the Siege of Charleston and when Washington’s troops were awaiting battle in Manhattan. The American Declaration set out those principles, which united the diverse colonies. And the party system, as Bolingbroke said, brought animosity and weakened the Union. Critics disputed these claims. William Warburton attacked Bolingbroke as an evil-speaker with “dog-eloquence”—claimed his calls for party reform were an aristocratic conspiracy to cement the power of elites. An anonymous critic argued that the government is a union of unrelated people where laws supplant the natural bonds between families. Then, the government of the United States would not exist, or would not exist long.

Keep ReadingShow less