Skip to content

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.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

Keep ReadingShow less
David French

New York Times columnist David French was removed from the agenda of a faith-basd gathering because we was too "divisive."

Macmillan Publishers

Is canceling David French good for civic life?

Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.

On June 10-14, the Presbyterian Church in America held its annual denominational assembly in Richmond, Va. The PCA created considerable national buzz in the lead-up when it abruptly canceled a panel discussion featuring David French, the highly regarded author and New York Times columnist.

The panel carried the innocuous-sounding title, “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The reason for canceling it? French, himself a long-time PCA member, was deemed too “divisive.” This despite being a well-known, self-identified “conservative” and PCA adherent. Ironically, the loudest and most divisive voices won the day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Young girl holding a sparkler and wearing an American flag shirt
Rebecca Nelson/Getty Images

Three approaches to Independence Day

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.

July Fourth is not like Christmas or Rosh Hashanah, holidays that create a unified sense of celebration among celebrants. On Christmas, Christians throughout the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. On Rosh Hashanah, Jews throughout the world celebrate the Jewish New Year.

Yet on the Fourth of July, apart from the family gatherings, barbecues and drinking, we take different approaches. Some Americans celebrate the declaration of America's independence from Great Britain and especially the value of freedom. And some Americans reject the holiday, because they believe it highlights the self-contradiction of the United States, which created a nation in which some would be free and some would be enslaved. And other Americans are conflicted between these two points of view.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fireworks on July 4
Roy Rochlin/Getty Images

One country, one constitution, one destiny

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

“One country, one constitution, one destiny,” Daniel Webster said in a historic 1837 speech defending the American Union.

This of Fourth of July, 187 years after Webster’s speech and the 248th anniversary of the signing of our Declaration of Independence, Webster would no doubt be dismayed to find his quote reconstrued by popular opinion to read something like this:

“Divided country, debated constitution, and as for destiny, we’re going to hell in a hand-basket.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Rich Harwood
Harwood Institute

Meet the change leaders: Rich Harwood

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

After working on more than 20 political campaigns and two highly respected nonprofits, Rich Harwood set out to create something entirely different. He founded what is now known as The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation in 1988, when he was just 27 years old (and is now its president). Soon after, he wrote the ground-breaking report “Citizen and Politics: A View from Main Street,” the first national study to uncover that Americans did not feel apathetic about politics, but instead held a deep sense of anger and disconnection.

Over the past 30 years, Rich has innovated and developed a new philosophy and practice for how communities can solve shared problems, create a culture of shared responsibility and deepen people’s civic faith. The Harwood practice of Turning Outward has spread to all 50 states and is being used in 40 countries.

Keep ReadingShow less