Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Our poisonous age of absolutism

Opinion

Abortion rights and anti-abortion protestors at the Supreme Court

An anti-abortion protestor confronts abortion rights activists during dueling rallies in front of the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Paterno, a former quarterbacks coach for Penn State University, ran for lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania in 2014 and consults on a variety of issues.

To a nation already drunk on the partisan pursuit of absolutist politics, it appears likely that the Supreme Court is about to uncork a 1973 vintage from Grapes of Wrath Vineyards called “Renverser Roe v. Wade.” The landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was a controversial ruling then; it has remained so. Overturning it will unleash a new round of contentious politics.

This column is not about the legal merits of either side, but how this case adds fuel to the fire in our current age of 50.1 percent Absolutism.

A decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will set off a nationwide scramble to win elections and grab the reins of power at the state and federal levels. And for the most vocal and visible sides of the issue there can be no compromise. But these days that seems to be the case for every issue.


Absolutism is about raw power and is the plague of our current politics. Sides dig in with non-negotiable answers to every issue. Compromise and collaboration are never acceptable.

It is a philosophy that means that once one side hits 50.1 percent they use that majority to try ramming home everything they want. They use it to look the other way on ethics violations on their side, and to advance their agenda without input from anyone else.

For the 49.9 percent in the minority, this new age means obstruction, refusal to cooperate in the hopes that things don’t go well and the majority will be transferred to their party.

For four years with a GOP president we heard all about infrastructure. And what happened when a Democrat got into the White House? Many of the GOP infrastructure hawks suddenly turned to “No” votes. Now many of them are now running around their districts taking credit for new infrastructure projects coming home. But that’s the nature of where we are.

To gain and then ensure a hold on power some will do anything. But there are two basic things that must be protected: the legal system and our election process.

The justice system is best when we remember that our system is founded so that innocent people are not wrongly jailed. And our election system is best when we make voting as accessible as possible for everyone. Retreating on those rights has become a cause because people who did not like the election results continually lie about nonexistent, large-scale fraud.

The right to vote and the right to due process are two sacred foundations of our nation’s governance. But absolutism with a splash of ascendant authoritarian impulses is a cocktail that threatens to poison us all.

The presidential veto and the Supreme Court remain checks in our unique system. Presidents must get elected and then face the people four years later, but Supreme Court justices armed with lifetime appointments remain in power until the hour of their choosing, or until they die. It is easy to see why some of them may attain an arrogance bordering on a god complex.

Congressional power, like the presidency, is ever-changing. So the question for a party with slim margins in Congress is how much party discipline leaders can command. In an evenly divided Senate like we have now, one or two senators can have the keys to an outsized amount of power.

For those who understand that governing is done through ever-evolving coalitions of convenience and consensus, these are bitter days.

The most mature leadership requires compromise, but for everyone willing to work with others, the party extremes are waiting with a primary challenger and an army of social media mobsters to inflame emotions against them.

Absolutism disguised as “integrity” or “consistency” resolves nothing and leads to constant cycles of conflict for those drawing their power from enduring strife. Hard-core extremists engage in politics is an all-or-nothing, zero-sum game.

And conflict sells. So the absolutists are addicted to the social media attention that is then rewarded by partisan news outlets. Those outlets’ viewers drink nightly from the unholy chalice of inflexible extremist ideology.

Aside from ideology, absolutism has even created its own set of “facts.”

I know it is not popular to say this but it must be said: We are not entitled to our own “truths” but rather we must accept the truth. Absolute certainty in someone’s own “truths” births a false worldview that creates the explosive emotions that lead to events like Charlottesville in 2017 or to the riot of Jan. 6, 2021.

As a long, hot summer approaches, the hand-to-hand combat in every state that may be unleashed by overturning Roe v. Wade is another fuse. That fuse is fertile ground for those who draw power from division, for those who drive anger.

These are people who wish to call into question every institution we have in this country, from the government, our elections and our judicial system to our education system and our media.

They do this to create the conditions where all trust is gone. And when trust is gone there is no hope in sitting across the table as sisters and brothers to forge the types of compromises that created our founding documents, the kinds of compromises that can bind us together again.

To reject the default position of distrust, to reject the sweet siren call of constant conflict; that is the challenge of our time. And it is only about to get even harder.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less