Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

DeSantis' sitcom world

Opinion

DeSantis' sitcom world
Getty Pictures

Goldstone’s latest book is “Not White Enough: The Long, Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment.” Learn more at www.lawrencegoldstone.com.

In his take no prisoners crusade to out-Trump Trump and be the next occupant of the White House, Ron DeSantis has donned a right-wing superhero cape as America’s self-anointed Number One Culture Warrior. Touting Florida as the state in which “woke comes to die,” he has forced through a compliant legislature a series of laws for which the term “conservative” is inadequate.


His legislative record, the cornerstone of his presidential campaign, is undeniably impressive, in quantity at any rate. In addition to the “Don’t Say Gay” law, which first banned classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity through the third grade and was later extended to cover all grades, DeSantis signed a bill prohibiting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, and another that prevents school staffers or students from being required to refer to people by pronouns that do not correspond to their sex at birth, as well as barring school employees from asking students what pronoun they use. Public colleges can no longer use state or federal funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

Then there was the “Stop WOKE Act,” which constrains race-based discussions in schools and businesses, and another law that prohibits school curricula from casting whites as historically racist or that they should feel guilty for past actions aimed at racial minorities.

Thanks to DeSantis, Floridians can now carry concealed firearms without a permit, meaning neither a background check nor training is required. Not satisfied with half-measures, the governor favors allowing these same people, even if they are potential mass murderers, to openly and proudly flaunt their weaponry in public. To balance that out perhaps, death sentences will no longer require a unanimous jury.

This is all in addition to his feud with Disney, which had previously been largely thought of as a company founded by a right-wing racist and likely anti-Semite.

There has been so much attention paid to these laws individually that few have taken a step back to examine just what kind of society DeSantis is trying so frenziedly to create, and what parallels to it might exist in American history.

There is one, and it is an eerie match for DeSantis’s policies—the 1950s sitcom. And like DeSantis’s political and historical narrative, it is made up.

Father Knows Best is the perfect example. That series, featuring the lovable, attractive Anderson family, ran for seven seasons, ending the year John F. Kennedy was elected president, and was so popular and so idealized that the Treasury Department commissioned a 30-minute episode to help sell United States savings bonds.

The cast would have found a warm place in Ron DeSantis’s heart—assuming he has one. Avuncular Robert Young—who later brought a similar persona to Marcus Welby, MD—is dad Jim, who always has the right answer and never loses his temper; Jane Wyatt is mom Margaret, who could not be happier spending her days cooking, cleaning, and being a warm, wise, and reassuring presence to the couple’s three children, nicknamed Princess, Bud, and Kitten, who do not work, never get in fights, never fail a course in school, and live, albeit grudgingly, on limited allowances.

Jim works as an insurance agent and the family, which lives on Maple Avenue in Springfield, state unnamed, eats dinners together, goes to church every Sunday, never swears, questions authority, nor seems to have need of any government service. They are always well-dressed and well-groomed, and although sex could not seem further from anyone’s mind, including mom and dad, all are clearly and blissfully heterosexual.

In those years, American families could sit at home, watch Father Knows Best and other shows like it, and feel that all was right with the world…their world.

But it was not. The real Father Knows Best world was as phony as the one DeSantis wants to foist on the people of the United States.

The illusion begins with the cast. Robert Young was an alcoholic who also suffered from depression, and it was often difficult for him to complete a day’s shooting upright. When the show ended, he went into rehab and joined AA. Billy Gray, who played Bud, admitted to having gay sex and smoking marijuana from age 14; “Princess” Elinor Donahue became anorexic; and “Kitten” Lauren Chapin was molested by her father at age sixteen and later became a heroin addict and prostitute.

Each of the cast members seems to have successfully straightened out their lives, but it took a level of hard work and commitment that none of the Andersons needed because all their problems were conveniently solved by script writers.

Even worse was what these slices of cardboard American pie did not show. No one was poor, no one had an unwanted pregnancy, no one was unfairly stopped by the police, no one was denied the right to vote, no one was bullied in school, and no one but no one was a person of color, except perhaps for a cheerful domestic.

While Father Knows Best was reassuring America’s white population, Black Americans were being beaten and lynched in the South, uncloseted gay people were discriminated against in every aspect of life, women were often treated as incapable of holding either a real job or a real thought, and those who were transgender were forced to spend every single day living an excruciating lie.

That is the world to which Ron DeSantis would happily return, one where helpless, vulnerable minorities are sacrificed so that the majority can live in smug security. DeSantis’s phony world is different from the phony world of sitcoms in that the cruelty is not offstage, but rather right out there and even celebrated. Being meaner and more cruel than Donald Trump is no easy task, but DeSantis is giving it his all.

Although sitcoms are very much alive, the Father Knows Best variety is not. America has grown up, at least a little, and sitcoms, such as Modern Family, have evolved along with it.

Too bad Ron DeSantis has not.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less