Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Thursday's debate is a question of -isms

Donald Trump and Joe Biden debate

Donald Trump and Joe Biden participate in the final presidential debate of the 2020 campaign. They will debate again Thursday.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

The United States is on -ism overload, especially if you are in politics, the media or academia.

Depending on who you follow on television, the radio or your phone, there is the ongoing battle between capitalism and its critics, the battle between the forces of democracy and the forces of authoritarianism, the battle between liberalism, conservatism and centrism, the related battle between liberalism, conservatism and independents. Then there’s Kantianism vs. utilitarianism concerning future generations, feminism vs. the establishment, and the international relations battle between realism and liberal internationalism.

Yes, all of these -ism battles are raging and most are vying for primary attention. What is a citizen — in their 20s or of retirement age, college educated or not, urban, suburban or rural — to think?


There is no clear answer to that question. What is for sure is that there is no best way to formulate the dominant battle in American politics and society today, and there certainly is no shared vocabulary or framework that the majority of the public or the majority of the pundits use.

What may be helpful to point out is that there are a couple of master battles that do dominate the airwaves, and some are formulated as two-way fights and some are formulated as three-way contests.

The two-way battle is between democratic liberalism and authoritarianism, formulated by the former and not the latter. Thus many Democratic politicians, notably President Joe Biden, say their side is the party of democracy and former President Donald Trump and the GOP are the party of authoritarianism, even fascism.

This formulation is reminiscent of World War I and World War II, as well as the Cold War. There are, in short, the good guys and the bad guys. Election 2024 is therefore between the forces of good and the forces of evil according to the Democratic Party. To the Republican Party, there is also a master two-way battle underway, but it is between the wise, prudent, fiscally responsible Republican Party and the left-wing, fiscally irresponsible, woke socialist Democratic Party.

Both think the other is the real threat to our democratic republic

For citizens, you can either wear glasses that frame our politics in this very simplistic, overstated way, or you can choose to see politics through one of several three-way battles. The one which is most illuminating is that between Democrats, Republicans and independents. It is the most illuminating because the independents, according to Gallup and others, make up 40 percent to 45 percent of American voters, even though there are only a handful of members of the House and Senate who are independents, (Sen. Bernie Sanders, Angus King, Kyrsten Sinema and, as of late, Joe Manchin).

What is striking about the contrast between the two master formulations is that the independents have little to no representation in Washington, even though the 70 million to 100 million Americans who fall into this category are, in their own way, in a battle with citizens who are registered Democrats and Republicans and politicians who are elected as Democrats and Republicans.

At the very least, an honest American should feel some degree of confusion about how we can have a major war between Democrats and Republicans concerning the core values they stand for and a battle between citizens — nearly half of whom are independents but have very few representatives who stand up for them.

You could argue that there is something wrong about the simplistic picture many paint about the war between the Democrats and the Republicans for the soul of the country. You can certainly argue that there is something wrong with the fact that close to half of American voters have no real representation in Washington.

Either way, there is something very wrong with how we categorize and group ourselves politically and how our politicians, their consultants and donors tell us how to think about politics and our society. Perhaps one of the questions posed to Biden and Trump at their first debate Thursday night could address these two major problems with our politics.


Read More

The Reward — Angela and James: An American Dynasty

Ring–Fitzgerald Homestead, Will County (1987). A house still true to its original form, carrying forward the Rings’ steadiness, aspiration, and good citizenship across five generations.

Photo courtesy by Patrick Fitzgerald.

The Reward — Angela and James: An American Dynasty

They got an early start; the morning light came on fast. The Ring siblings were headed to the Joliet depot with young Angela in tow — the same depot where Lincoln’s funeral train had passed in silence thirty years earlier. Now they were bound for the White City, forty miles northeast. The Columbian Exposition was a turning point for both Angela and America. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, pitched just outside the fairgrounds, rivaled the Exhibition itself.

One photograph captured it all. Taken in a fairground photo booth, the Ring siblings stood in their summer clothes, huddled around eleven-year-old Angela. Their faces were bright and open — a single moment preserved in time. Determined to outshine the 1889 Paris Exhibition and its Eiffel Tower, Chicago answered with George Ferris’s great wheel. At night, the city glowed, outlined in electric white light.

Keep ReadingShow less
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