Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

'Pro' and 'anti' positions are simple – and unproductive

thumbs up and thumbs down
PM Images/Getty Images

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

It’s much easier for politicians to simplify complex issues with words like “pro this” or “anti that” rather than deal with the complexities and nuances that are required to address the serious problems our nation and the world are facing.

Politicians get elected over and over again using sound bites to win over voters, so why change? Speaking in absolutes also engenders a sense of certainty and leadership when in fact there is typically uncertainty at the center of hard issues and great leaders accept and harness uncertainty rather than deny it.

So many voters, without even thinking, fall for this trap and are comfortable with being anti-mask or pro-mask, or pro-life or pro-choice, or pro-guns or anti-guns, or pro-immigration or anti-immigration.


How has the level of polarization in our country evolved to the point where we accept “pro” and “anti” without realizing that these terms push us further and further apart, preventing us from solving our problems?

Dave Anderson addressed this problem with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He argued that it was time to drop the terms “pro-Palestinian” and “pro-Israel” in The Fulcrum in December. Acknowledging there are short- and long-term issues in the overall conflict, Anderson addressed the problem when he wrote, “What would truly eliminate confusion is if people would first identify their overall position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

He went on to say:

The key is to know if someone thinks there is a way to create a map of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza that enables Jews and Palestinians to live in peace. This can be called the "Peaceful Coexistence Model." Thus someone can either stand for peaceful coexistence or not. Hamas, for one, is against the idea of peaceful coexistence. Iran is also opposed to the idea. The Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, have appeared for years to be for peaceful coexistence.

Anderson explained that sometimes the use of the terms “pro-Palestinian” and “pro-Israeli” does reflect an absolute conflict where someone is totally against the other side. Yet he pointed out that this language may conceal the fact that someone might agree with someone on the other side on the long-term solution even though they disagree about the short-term solution. Thus a pro-Palestinian person and pro-Israeli person may both support a two-state solution, but in the short-term they could take opposite sides over how Israel is prosecuting the war against Hamas.

The truth is that most of our domestic public policy problems are very complicated and could be resolved if the politicians, who are very polarized, were not so narrow-minded and unwilling to compromise. Public policy problems – ranging from immigration to climate control, child care to paid parental leave to entitlement reform – should not be "pro vs. anti" issues. There is a middle position on these issues, but the politicians refuse to find it.

The public, which is not as polarized as politicians in Washington, can take a step forward and stop using pro and anti language. It is our responsibility as citizens to rise above infighting and demagoguery, above the simplicity of the pro and anti rhetoric.

Our national challenges and problems are earnest, urgent and serious. Thomas Jefferson recognized that democracy was born from discourse and discussion, and that such resulting discussion would be replete with differing perspectives and opinions. For our Republic to survive ideological differences, we must lead with inquiry, and move from inquiry to resolving our challenges through compromise.

Each one of us must take it upon ourselves to foster the habits of open-mindedness and critical inquiry within ourselves. If we as individuals make changes in how we communicate with each other, then we can call on politicians to do the same. And if we are not satisfied with how politicians respond to changes we make or our calls to them to resolve our pressing problems, then we should vote them out of office. For they only have power so long as we give it to them.

Read More

"They want us divided sign" that represents partisanship among democrats and republicans.

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate.

Getty Images, Jena Ardell

Manufacturing Dissent: How ‘Deep Disagreement’ Serves the Anti-Democratic Elite

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate. The premise is simple yet highly seductive: Some disagreements we are told are so fundamental, so rooted in incompatible worldviews or paradigmatically incommensurable epistemologies, that no meaningful argumentation is possible between the disagreeing parties. The implication is stark: Reason and Dialogue cannot bridge the gulf. But this diagnosis, while sounding sobering and serious, is in fact a dangerous illusion. It is an intellectual sleight of hand that masks both the manufactured nature of such disagreements and the vested interests that thrive on perpetuating them.

Indeed, contrary to its glossy surface neutrality, the notion of “deep disagreement” is not merely a philosophical tool but has become a performative trope, perfectly suited for an age of outrage, polarization, and algorithmic amplification. It helps rationalize the breakdown of dialogue, casting it not as a product of bad faith, deliberate miscommunication, or elite manipulation, but as a tragic inevitability of divergent rationalities. In doing so, it gives cover to a much darker political agenda: The delegitimation of democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball
a yellow baseball sitting on top of a table
Photo by Patti Black on Unsplash

Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball

On a recent hot and steamy July evening in Washington, D.C., the players for a unique sporting event were warming up. Audi Field, home of the DC United and Washington Spirit soccer teams, had been converted into a baseball diamond. And the athletes were not some group of high-paid professionals – they were amateurs at softball, but not at politics.

This was the annual Women’s Congressional Softball Game, now in its 17th year. The game was founded by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) and former Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) as a vehicle to raise money for the Young Survival Coalition (YSC), a nonprofit that helps young women affected by breast cancer by providing resources and support. Wasserman Schultz was a breast cancer survivor at the age of 41 and explained in an interview before the game why she founded the event. “I knew when I came out on the other side, I wanted to use my platform to be able to help fill a void in the fight against breast cancer,” she said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz was sworn in for a second term as a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district, January 8, 2025

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz is an American businesswoman and politician who is a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district.

Cepeda-Freytiz was elected on November 8, 2022, and returned to Harrisburg for a second term after being re-elected in 2024. The 129th district includes parts of Reading and Spring Township as well as Sinking Spring, West Reading, and Wyomissing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

ruler, measuring tape, working hands

Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

Since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, there has been an increase in anxiety around citizenship for immigrants and refugees in the United States.

By the end of his first day, Trump signed 10 executive orders relating to immigration. This included an order to halt refugee admissions, including tens of thousands of refugees who had already been cleared to come to the U.S. by the Biden administration. The order, “REALIGNING THE United States REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM,” largely targets the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Keep ReadingShow less