Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Stop crossing the line

Cars driving on either side of the yellow lines
Skyak/Getty Images

Gerzon and Gates are co-founders of Philanthropy Bridging Divides. Gerzon is president of the Mediators Foundation and author of "The Reunited States of America.” Gates is a former president of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement and the National Civic League.

If political progress follows technological innovation, then there is hope for our democracy.

Most new cars now have a sensor that tells us when we cross the line. It gives us a warning to get back in our lane. Unfortunately, in politics we witness politicians and citizens “crossing the line” all too often. Like on the road, the resulting damage is sometimes irreparable.


Now that anyone who criticizes extremist speech is automatically attacked, the result is predictable. Whoever does it gets labeled as “partisan.” If you call out someone in the MAGA world for crossing the line, you would be dismissed as “anti-Trump.” Conversely, if you call out a progressive for using offensive language that is insulting or demeaning (remember the “deplorables”?) readers will assume you are Trumpites or Fox News junkies. If anyone who criticizes extremist speech is automatically attacked, the result is predictable: self-censorship and silence.

The disagreement over the Israel-Hamas conflict has clearly made matters worse. The dispute is profoundly dividing the Democratic Party, in ways that will create lasting scars. When we read the social media posts of former friends and colleagues on both sides of the issue, we see language that clearly crosses the line on both sides, words that can’t be taken back. It will be impossible, once this situation has resolved itself, to say, “Only kidding” or “We’re fine.” In politics, as on the road, crossing the line has consequences.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

To continue having a truly United States of America, we need to find a way to stay within the lines. We need to find a way to not condemn and demonize each other. Otherwise, as on the highway, traffic will turn into chaos and damage will ensue.

In a divided time and a divided nation, we need to find ways to hear opposing opinions and process them with understanding, without condemning the source. Even Maureen Dowd recently wrote, “Here’s the reality people don’t want to accept: Trump is likely to be one of two candidates who will be president in 2025. Even if we despise the things he says, we’ve got to hear them.”

If we only had the same sensors in our lives that would BEEP BEEP BEEP when we crossed that line, we would be well served. Instead, even the most reasonable people can end up offending, dismissing and castigating one another, which makes forward movement impossible. Eighty-one million people voted for Joe Biden in the last election. Seventy-four million people voted for Donald Trump. If each side concludes that the other is fundamentally evil we will never be able to govern or act as a nation that has shared values.

And yet, if we polled all those voters, we would discover that we are actually a nation that shares core values about what makes for a good community and a good life. We would find scant support for more crime, worse schools, more litter, more traffic jams or more political dysfunction. True, we do have big fundamental disagreements about things that become elevated by cable television and social media and we can become convinced that our neighbor is our enemy, not someone with whom we agree on some things and disagree on others.

Disagreeing with someone with whom we agree on many things is fundamentally different than disagreeing with someone with whom we agree on nothing. We could lower the political temperature in our country by installing a warning system that lets us know when we cross the line, turning disagreement into dislike or disdain. If only Elon Musk could take that project on.

BEEP BEEP BEEP

Read More

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same
a red hat that reads make america great again

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

Recently, while listening to a podcast, I came across the term “reprise” in the context of music and theater. A reprise is a repeated element in a performance—a song or scene returning to reinforce themes or emotions introduced earlier. In a play or film, a familiar melody might reappear, reminding the audience of a previous moment and deepening its significance.

That idea got me thinking about how reprise might apply to the events shaping our lives today. It’s easy to believe that the times we are living through are entirely unprecedented—that the chaos and uncertainty we experience are unlike anything before. Yet, reflecting on the nature of a reprise, I began to reconsider. Perhaps history does not simply move forward in a straight line; rather, it cycles back, echoing familiar themes in new forms.

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

An illustration depicting the U.S. Constitution and Government.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

Towards the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson became fatalistic. The prince and poet of the American Revolution brooded—about the future of the country he birthed, to be sure; but also about his health, his finances, his farm, his family, and, perhaps most poignantly, his legacy. “[W]hen all our faculties have left…” he wrote to John Adams in 1822, “[when] every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and athumy, debility, and malaise [is] left in their places, when the friends of our youth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know not, is death an evil?”

The question was rhetorical, of course. But it revealed something about his character. Jefferson was aware that Adams and he—the “North and South poles of the Revolution”—were practically the only survivors of the Revolutionary era, and that a new generation was now in charge of America’s destiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining the Democracy Movement: Francis Johnson
- YouTube

Defining the Democracy Movement: Francis Johnson

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview of this series took place with Francis Johnson, the founding partner of Communications Resources, a public affairs organization, and the former President of Take Back Our Republic. This non-partisan organization advocates for conservative solutions to campaign finance reform. A veteran of Republican politics, Francis has been at the forefront of structural reform efforts, including initiatives like ranked-choice voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sacred Succession: The Pope's Final Gift to Democracy
a person standing on a sidewalk with a hat on
Photo by Chris Weiher on Unsplash

Sacred Succession: The Pope's Final Gift to Democracy

When the bells of St. Peter's Basilica tolled on Easter Monday, announcing Pope Francis's death at 88, they rang for the world's 1.3 billion Catholics and all of humanity. During the moment of transition for the Catholic Church, we witnessed the conclave, a ritual of power transfer that predates modern democracy yet might offer surprising lessons for our contemporary political moment.

The death of a pope represents more than a religious milestone. It is a moment that transcends theological boundaries, offering insights into how institutions navigate succession, how power transfers in an age of global uncertainty, and how ancient traditions might illuminate modern challenges.

Keep ReadingShow less