Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Toxic political talk undermines the foundations of our country

Red and blue heads colliding
wildpixel/Getty Images

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

The 2024 presidential race is heating up and, with it, an alarming trend has emerged in how we as a nation are talking to each other. It's not just a matter of political strategy; it's a crisis that demands our immediate attention.


Divisive rhetoric — such as labeling immigrants as "invaders" or "criminals," using inflammatory language like "enemy of the people" to describe the media, dehumanizing speech that refers to people of certain ethnicities as "animals," and outright racism — is becoming all too familiar. This way of politicking isn't just a betrayal of democratic principles and American ideals. The toxic talk we're experiencing is a clear and present danger to our social contract.

The consequences of this kind of rhetoric are severe. Look at the recent rise in hate crimes and discrimination against ethnic groups. It creates a toxic environment in which fear and anger run the show, clouding our judgment and leading us to destruction. It tears at the seams that bind us together, threatening to rip us apart. Most damaging, it poisons our political discourse, preventing us from discussing critical issues honestly, finding common ground and working towards solutions that benefit all Americans. But the danger goes even further.

When leaders use rhetoric that demonizes, scapegoats and dehumanizes, they're not just dividing the people; they're actively undermining the foundations of our country. They're saying some lives and rights matter less than others. They're violating the sacred principle of equality that is the bedrock of our democracy.

Disrespectful discourse isn't just anti-democratic; it's the opposite of healthy citizenship and basic human decency. It's a poison that infects our society, corrupting the ideals of liberty, equality and justice we hold so dear. This “toxic rhetoric” refers to language that incites hatred, fear and discrimination, and it's a system in which some are elevated at the expense of others, leading to injustice and inequality. Marginalized groups are inevitably the target of hatred, violence and oppression. We bear the brunt of this toxic rhetoric, suffering the consequences of a society that has lost its way.

The goal should be a nation where every voice is heard, every life is valued and everyone is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. The United States is where diversity ought to be celebrated, not denigrated, and where inclusion is the common practice, not the exception. Democracy demands greater and expects much from its leaders and citizens. Democratic republics strive to curate political discourse grounded in truth, guided by empathy and dedicated to the well-being of all citizens. As a key player in shaping public opinion, the media has a crucial role in promoting respectful and inclusive political discourse. It's not just a role, it's a responsibility that cannot be understated.

Respectful discourse isn't about creating a fake atmosphere of consensus. Healthy debate seeks to find common ground, even in disagreement. It's about creating a political discourse that tackles the real problems we face, even if that means we disagree. More importantly, it's about recognizing that we can have differing views without demonizing those who see the world differently.

Respectful rhetoric expresses civility, empathy, and respect for humanity. It is an earnest exercise that requires open minds and hearts, and most importantly, empathy. For instance, respectful and inclusive political discourse involves acknowledging the experiences and perspectives of all citizens, regardless of their background. It's about prioritizing real issues over empty rhetoric and holding our leaders accountable for what they say and do. It's about demanding substance over style, action over words. The fate of American democracy literally hangs on our respective tongues and choices we make.


Read More

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep ReadingShow less