Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Biden’s State of the Union was predictable — and exactly what we needed

Opinion

Joe Biden's 2022 State of the Union address

"I noted the opening visuals of two women sitting behind the president while he spoke and smiled to myself ," writes Molineaux. "Yes, we need more women in elected office and in the halls of power."

Pool/Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Politics can be boring again.

I listened with anticipation to President Biden’s hour-long State of the Union speech to see how he would express a message that defines the moment in history that we are living through. More specifically, how he would deliver the line that all State of the Union addresses must apparently say.

“The state of the union is strong, because you, the American people, are strong.”

As this was his first State of the Union as president, expectations were high. And Biden delivered his vision and agenda for the future of the United States. There was seemingly something for everyone. And we all seemed to be asking, “Is this the moment when Biden gets back on track? Will this be how his approval ratings turn around?”


Personally, I find the approval polls as helpful as I find canned spinach. A little slimy and served with a touch of vinegar. They are a meaningless scorecard, surveying people who are actually grading their own lives and expectations of the near-future. After many years of fear-mongering, propaganda and outright lies, it’s no wonder we disapprove of everything. For most Americans, cynicism is our constant companion.

This was the context in which I listened to the speech while finishing some household chores. I noted the opening visuals of two women sitting behind the president while he spoke and smiled to myself. Yes, we need more women in elected office and in the halls of power.

Perhaps because of the global tensions surrounding the Ukraine invasion and resulting humanitarian crisis, I wanted our president to grasp the moment. But I failed to be moved to hope or belief that his vision was possible. At the same time, I found the speech to be a “normal” State of the Union address. As intended, Biden included many agenda items that he campaigned on and that progressives call for: new jobs, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, more union participation and a better life for working class Americans. In my mind, I could hear my conservative friends and family asking how we would pay for it all. I also heard clear outreach to conservatives, highlighting issues that are near and dear to conservative hearts like a strong support of capitalism, no new taxes for working Americans and increased funding to police.

There were, however, some lines in the speech that were inspiring and offered hope, especially those moments in which all members of Congress stood and applauded in unison. The division and toxicity in Congress is worse than ever so those seconds, as fleeting as they may have been, of bipartisanship and unity were a relief.

I was struck by the personal tone as Biden spoke about the cause of his son’s death (brain cancer) during a section on the VA pioneering a new way of linking toxic exposures to diseases veterans are experiencing. Acknowledging the need for our country to take responsibility for our veterans is long overdue. For him, veterans' care is deeply personal. The call to support veterans will be meaningful if we actually support veterans and not just use them as a prop.

Biden’s encouraging words about strengthening democracy around the world, as well as domestically, was balm to my soul. Given the focus of The Fulcrum and the members of Bridge Alliance (affiliated with The Fulcrum), it was nice to hear our work in the State of the Union. He called on our better angels to enact voting rights and other reforms to bolster the integrity of our elections. If we don’t get this right, nothing will improve.

Like most Americans, I long to ditch the mask without risking others’ lives. I look forward to our near future of “normalcy” without giving up on what must be done. My heart resonates with his words, “It’s gonna be OK.”

It was a relief not to hear partisan, propaganda-style claims, name calling or blame being cast on others. Instead of inflaming my fears, Biden left me soothed yet a little skeptical.

Perhaps in these tense times “soothing” is enough.

Today’s news will be full of analysis of Biden’s speech. I’ve avoided doing so hoping that a moment of reflection for myself and for our readers as to the times we are living in would better serve us all.

Biden’s first State of the Union speech felt predictable. And boring. And I loved it. Biden provided a soothing hope for the future and a vision for our shared opportunities. After all, political identity is not who we are, it is how we make decisions in a democracy. Politics should not have the lead role in our lives. Our friends and family should. Today, maybe we can start being one nation again.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less