Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Unity doesn’t mean thinking alike in a free society

Red and blue hands coming together
JakeOlimb/Getty Images

“In the political life of a free society, unity doesn’t mean thinking alike,” according to noted political theorist Yuval Levin. “Unity means acting together.”

A couple weeks ago, Levin sat down with Brian Boyle of American Promise to unpack this idea and others from Levin’s latest book, “ American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation — And Could Again.”


Levin is the director of social, cultural and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute. The founder and editor of National Affairs, he is also a senior editor at The New Atlantis, a contributing editor at National Review and a contributing opinion writer at The New York Times. Levin served as a member of the White House domestic policy staff under President George W. Bush.

In a wide-ranging conversation, they discussed the importance of constructive conflict in our constitutional system, practical ways to bridge the ideological divide and ongoing efforts to amend our country’s founding document.

The conversation was hosted by American Promise, a cross-partisan organization working to advance the For Our Freedom Amendment, a constitutional measure that would legally empower lawmakers to pass reasonable restrictions around campaign finance.

In the wake of a record-breaking $20 billion election, Levin also offered his take on how big money nationalizes local elections and collapses discourse, why well-intentioned campaign finance regulations have failed in the past and how judicial overreach disempowers Congress from tackling difficult problems.

Levin identified several structural factors that drive polarization, including the modern primary system. “We begin every election cycle by basically asking the people who least want the system to work, ‘Who do you want in the political system?’” Levin explains. “The answer is: People who don’t want to compromise, people who don’t want to bargain, people who want to be ideological purists — and who view the other party as the country’s biggest problem.”

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Democrats can reclaim America’s founding principles, rebuild the rural economy, and restore democracy by redefining the political battle Trump began.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Defining the Democrat v. Republican Battle

Winning elections is, in large part, a question of which Party is able to define the battle and define the actors. Trump has so far defined the battle and effectively defined Democrats for his supporters as the enemy of making America great again.

For Democrats to win the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections, they must take the offensive and show just the opposite–that it is they who are true to core American principles and they who will make America great again, while Trump is the Founders' nightmare come alive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Trump and the MAGA movement have twisted the meaning of patriotism. It’s time we collectively reclaim America’s founding ideals and the Pledge’s promise.

Getty Images, LeoPatrizi

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall, Who's the Most Patriotic of All?

Republicans have always claimed to be the patriotic party, the party of "America, right or wrong," the party willing to use force to protect American national interests abroad, the party of a strong military. In response, Democrats have not really contested this perspective since Vietnam, basically ceding the patriotic badge to the Republicans.

But with the advent of Donald Trump, the Republican claim to patriotism has gotten broader and more troubling. Republicans now claim to be the party that is true to our founding principles. And it is not just the politicians; they have support from far-right scholars at the Heritage Foundation, such as Matthew Spalding. The Democratic Party has done nothing to counter these claims.

Keep ReadingShow less
Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

As political violence threatens democracy, defending free speech, limiting government overreach, and embracing pluralism matters is critical right now.

Getty Images, Javier Zayas Photography

The American Experiment Requires Robust Debate, Not Government Crackdowns

The assassinations of conservative leader Charlie Kirk and Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota have triggered endorsements of violence and even calls for literal war on both the far right and far left. Fortunately, an overwhelming majority of Americans reject political violence, but all of us are in a fight to keep our diverse and boisterous brand of democracy alive. Doing so requires a renewed commitment to pluralism and a clear-headed recognition of the limits of government, especially when proposals entail using the criminal justice system to punish speech.

Pluralism has been called the lifeblood of a democracy like ours, in which being an American is not defined by race or religion. It requires learning about and accepting our differences, and embracing the principle that, regardless of them, every person is entitled to be protected by our Constitution and have a voice in how we’re governed. In contrast, many perpetrators of political violence rationalize their acts by denying the basic humanity of those with whom they disagree. They are willing to face the death penalty or life in prison in an attempt to force everyone to conform to their views.

Keep ReadingShow less