Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A call for conscious rhetoric

Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump attends the Republican National Convention on July 18.

Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images

J ohnson 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.

In the wake of the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and the shadow of the Republican National Convention, a stark reality confronts us: Our national discourse is a ticking time bomb, urgently in need of defusing. The incendiary rhetoric, the vitriol, the escalating violence — these are not just political issues but profound moral crises.

As a nation, we stand at a precipice, and the choice before us is consequential: We can continue down the path of hatred and division, or we can chart a new course guided by respect, empathy and the fundamental dignity of every human being.


Let us be clear: This is not a partisan issue. The poison of "whataboutism," projection and false equivalencies, dishonest debate, and gaslighting infects us all, regardless of our political stripes. It is a cancer that eats away at the heart of our democracy, turning our public square into a battleground and our fellow citizens into enemies.

We see it in how we debate, with minds already made up and ears closed to opposing views. We see it in the way we treat those who disagree with us, not as fellow Americans with differing opinions but as threats to be defeated. We see it in how we excuse the worst excesses of our side while magnifying the flaws of the other. These practices are not merely a political problem but a profound moral failure. It is a corruption of the soul, a hardening of the heart, a closing of the mind. And it demands not just a political response but an ethical one.

We must ask ourselves how we engage with those who see the world differently. Do I seek to understand or merely to triumph? Do I speak to illuminate or to obscure? Do I see a brother, sister, a human or an enemy to defeat in my fellow citizen? These questions will determine not just the future of our politics but the health of our souls.

As a Christian cleric, I am compelled by the teachings of my faith to speak out against injustice, to stand with the marginalized and to call my fellow believers to account. The prophets of old did not mince words when confronted with wrongdoing, nor can I. But this is not merely a religious imperative. It is a call to our shared humanity that transcends religious boundaries. Whether we identify as people of faith or not, we all intuitively understand the power of words. We remember the schoolyard taunts that cut to the bone, the words of encouragement that lifted our spirits, the voices of hatred that sparked violence and the speeches that inspired us to greatness.

Words are not neutral; they carry the power to heal, to harm, to build or to tear down. And in a society as diverse and fractured as ours, the words we choose, the rhetoric we embrace, carry the weight of life and death. Words can inflame our differences, turning our fellow citizens into enemies. They can either dehumanize and degrade or uplift and inspire. They can be tools of division or instruments of peace. And so we must choose our words carefully, aware of their power. We must speak with honesty, integrity, compassion and respect.

For instance, when we call out injustice, we should do so in a way that humanizes rather than demonizes. We should express our convictions with passion and remain open to persuasion in debates. And we must always remember that the words we speak and the rhetoric we embrace reflect not just our politics but our character. Thus, it is essential that we employ speech and messaging that reflects the best of our humanity rather than the worst. Only by communicating in such a manner can we hope to build a nation worthy of its highest ideals.

We often boast of the need for national unity. Still, unity is a hollow shell without the virtues that make it possible: empathy, respect and a commitment to the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. We must strive not merely to be a unified nation but to be a better people committed to the ideals of liberty and justice. And when we say "all," we mean all — without qualification, without exception.

The road ahead will be challenging, but it also holds the promise of transformation. It will demand courage, humility and a willingness to confront our failings. It will require us to listen when we would rather shout and to seek understanding when we would rather condemn. But it is the only path forward, the only way to break the cycle of hatred and build a society worthy of our highest ideals. The potential for positive change is within our grasp, and we must realize it.

We all share the collective responsibility of healing, bridge-building and forging a democracy. Honoring such a commitment is not just political necessity, but a moral and spiritual imperative. So start with the person in front of us, the colleague beside us, the stranger on the street. Engage with those who see the world differently, not with suspicion and hostility, but with curiosity and respect. In the future, we may listen as much as we speak and seek to understand more than persuade. Remember that every face we meet mirrors our humanity and deserves dignity and respect. Only by such small but steady acts can we hope to build a nation worthy of our highest ideals. The choice is ours. America chooses wisely.


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