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

Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Getty Images

Spencer Cox’s Off Ramp and Utah’s Tradition of Bipartisan Leadership

Utah has long impressed me as a place where governors take bipartisan leadership seriously, and my own experience confirms it. I first saw this more than a decade ago when I met former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman through No Labels. In January 2013, Huntsman, then a Republican, joined Democrat Joe Manchin as national co‑chairs of the organization, a partnership built on the belief that durable solutions require leaders willing to cross the aisle. Working with both of them during that period left a lasting impression on me. Their partnership embodied a simple but powerful truth: when leaders choose cooperation over contempt, they expand what’s possible for the country. Huntsman and Manchin worked deliberately to model cross‑partisan problem‑solving—demonstrating that principled disagreement can coexist with shared purpose.

That experience left a lasting impression on me, and it’s one reason Governor Spencer Cox’s new book Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt resonates so strongly with me today.

Keep ReadingShow less
Windows of a house

Low-angle view of two dormer windows protruding from townhouse roof

Grace Cary, Getty Images

Go Home

The distance from Washington, D.C., to my hometown of York, Pennsylvania, is 100 miles. When I worked as a Congressional staffer in D.C., I could get out of town and be back where I grew up in about an hour and a half, at least so long as I avoided rush hour traffic. Those last miles as I crossed the Pennsylvania-Maryland border brought a sense of gratitude for the relationships I would be keeping up. At my nephew’s soccer game, at an English-style pub with my long-time best friends, with my mother at the breakfast table having a local newspaper in her hands, life was ordinary.

I would return to work in D.C. feeling grounded. I felt better connected to

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol with a flag waving in front of it.

As Washington stalls, young bipartisan lawmakers in Alaska, Mississippi, and beyond are proving that cross-partisan collaboration still wins.

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

The Politicians Who Can Fix America's Polarization Problem Will Win

Political predictions are notoriously unreliable, but here is one I am willing to stand behind: the elected officials who figure out how to govern across difference will dominate the next decade of American politics. With dysfunction and paralysis having become the status quo in Washington, elected officials who work together to get things done will turn heads, offering desperate voters a much-needed alternative to a broken system.

Consider what happened in Alaska last year. The state’s lawmaking structure does not encourage political independence. Alaska has the nation's highest veto-override threshold: three-quarters. So when a popular education bill promising smaller class sizes, a cellphone ban, and vocational training funding cleared the legislature, only to be vetoed twice by the governor, it looked dead in the water.

Keep ReadingShow less