Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less