In this edition of #ListenFirstFriday, the 17-year-old founder of YAP Politics discusses efforts to bridge the polarizations between political affiliations.
Video: #ListenFirstFriday Yap Politics
#ListenFirst Friday Yap Politics
In September 2025, activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at a Utah campus event. His death was shocking — not only for its brutality, but because it showed that political violence is not just a relic of the past or a threat on the horizon. It is part of our national identity. Today’s surge in violence follows patterns we’ve seen before. Let’s take a look at that history.
When Pope Alexander VI issued the Doctrine of Discovery in 1493, he gave theological and legal cover for European conquest of lands already inhabited by indigenous people. These papal bulls declared non-Christian peoples “less than” and their lands open for seizure. This was more than a geopolitical maneuver — it embedded into the Western imagination a belief in the inherent supremacy of some over others.
When the United States was founded nearly three centuries later, the Founders carried this worldview with them. In the Constitution, they enshrined compromises that upheld racial hierarchy:
These legal structures weren’t neutral. They authorized violence: slave patrols, lynchings, Native removals enforced by militias, and the steady expansion of “whiteness” as the standard of belonging.
That seed has borne bitter fruit for centuries. In the United States, political violence has always been part of enforcing this hierarchy.
Across four centuries, violence has been used to enforce the same hierarchy: the supremacy of some over others.
We often think of white supremacy as something “out there,” belonging only to extremists. But if we are honest, we must ask: Where does it live inside us? In our unspoken fears, in the reflex to protect what is “ours,” in the subtle hierarchies we accept as normal. To live in peace, we must do the hard work of rooting it out of our own hearts and minds.
What we all yearn for is simple: a dignified life. A way to live securely, peacefully, and in community with one another. That dignity cannot be built on the subjugation of others — it can only grow in soil where all belong.
My heart yearns for a peaceful world where our society is based in convenient, life-affirming systems. Our current society has deep roots in a hierarchy of human value and we have yet to break free. Our liberation depends upon us doing so. Here are things everyone can do:
The arc of violence will not bend toward peace on its own. It requires all of us, together, to name the roots, pull them up, and choose a different inheritance.
The Roots of America’s Violence was first published on Debilyn Molineaux's substack platform and was republished with permission.
Debilyn Molineaux is a storyteller, collaborator & connector. For 20 years, she led cross-partisan organizations. She currently holds several roles, including catalyst for JEDIFutures.org and podcast host of Terrified Nation. She also works with the Center for Collaborative Democracy, which is home to the Grand Bargain Project as a way to unify Americans by getting unstuck on six big issues, all at the same time. She previously co-founded BridgeAlliance, Living Room Conversations, and the National Week of Conversation. You can learn more about her work on LinkedIn.
The noosphere is here—and it’s under siege. This essay explores how Musk, Trump, and Putin are shaping the global mind through Starlink, X, and cognitive warfare.
In the early 20th century, two thinkers—Russian geochemist Vladimir Vernadsky and French Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin—imagined a moment when humanity’s collective consciousness would crystallize into a new planetary layer: the noosphere, from the Greek nous, meaning “mind.” A web of thought enveloping the globe, driven by shared knowledge, science, and a spiritual awakening.
Today, the noosphere is no longer speculation. It is orbiting above us, pulsing through the algorithms of our digital platforms. And it is being weaponized in real time. Its arrival has not ushered in global unity but cognitive warfare. Its architecture is not governed by democracies or international institutions but by a handful of unaccountable actors.
But rather than a universal awakening, we are witnessing fragmentation, manipulation, and control. The most literal manifestation of the noosphere today is Starlink, SpaceX’s low Earth orbit satellite constellation of 6,000+ satellites that changed the nature of war, enabling Ukrainian communications after Russia attacked its telecom infrastructure. Yet Starlink isn’t a neutral utility. It’s privately owned, and decisions about where and how it functions are made by Elon Musk, not by any government or international body. Starlink is creating a new kind of global infrastructure—the nervous system of the noosphere—outside the control of any elected government. And that nervous system is being contested, both overtly and subtly.
A 2023 RAND Corporation report issued a stark warning: authoritarian regimes—especially Russia and China—are exploiting digital systems to wage what RAND calls “cognitive warfare” (RAND, 2023), where narrative is the primary weapon. Fact-checking and transparency are insufficient defenses when memes, deepfakes, and coordinated influence campaigns spread faster than reason can respond.
This is what political scientists call sharp power—the ability to subvert and manipulate open societies through the same freedoms that make them vulnerable. The noosphere, with its interconnected thought streams and real-time communication, is the perfect terrain for its deployment.
Russia, in particular, has mastered this form of warfare. From interference in U.S. elections to disinformation, the Kremlin has weaponized narrative as a geopolitical tool. Enter Donald Trump, whose second term, aligned with Musk’s platform X (formerly Twitter) and sympathetic to Putin’s strongman model, threatens to fuse political, technological, and ideological forces into a single, disruptive cognitive front.
This is not a formal alliance—but it is ideological and tactical. All three challenge traditional democratic norms. All three use media (or control platforms) to shape perception and bypass institutional gatekeepers. And all three have shown a willingness to disrupt geopolitical order for personal or national gain.
Their convergence has tangible implications for the noosphere. Trump undermines the credibility of democratic institutions and the press. Musk enables unmoderated information flows and has curtailed moderation and safety teams at X. Putin funds disinformation and cyberwarfare campaigns that infect the infosphere with confusion and chaos.
In short: they are converging to shape the noosphere in their image.
What we’re witnessing is the emergence of a digital empire without borders, governed by influence, infrastructure, and ideology. The tragedy of the current moment is not just that these actors hold power—but that democracies have failed to adapt. There is still no global framework for managing cognitive conflict. No institution meaningfully governs planetary-scale digital infrastructure. No coherent strategy exists to counter sharp power in the noosphere.
And so the noosphere—once imagined as the culmination of human progress—is becoming a contested zone, shaped not by collective wisdom but by whoever has the tools to dominate it.
Whose noosphere will prevail? Will it be the one envisioned by Vernadsky and Teilhard—open, cooperative, and transcendent? Or will it be a noosphere of surveillance, fragmentation, and control, shaped by the agendas of the powerful? As RAND warns, the decisive question is no longer “whose army wins?” but “whose story wins?”
What is needed is a deeper, institutionalized federation among democratic nations that can pool sovereignty in the digital domain, establish shared norms, and project a coherent, values-driven strategy against authoritarian encroachment. There is new urgency—not only to defend against external threats but to preserve the very conditions under which free thought, deliberation, and truth can survive in the 21st century.
Joe Trippi is the Chairman and Co-Founder of Sez.us a a reputation-based social media platform. Trippi was a renowned Democratic political strategist, best known for managing Howard Dean’s groundbreaking 2004 presidential campaign, which pioneered online grassroots organizing.
The Democracy Awards Ceremony hosted by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) on Thursday, September 18, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) hosted its annual Democracy Awards Ceremony on Thursday, September 18, recognizing exceptional Members of Congress and staff who exemplify outstanding public service, operational excellence, and innovation in their work on Capitol Hill.
In the stately House Ways & Means Committee Hearing Room, the 8th annual Democracy Awards ceremony unfolded as a heartfelt tribute to the congressional offices honored earlier this summer. The event marked more than just a formal recognition—it was a celebration of integrity, dedication, and the enduring spirit of public service.
Throughout the ceremony, emotions ran high. Members of Congress and their staff—regardless of party affiliation—gathered not as political adversaries, but as stewards of democracy. The atmosphere served as a powerful reminder that, even in polarized times, collaboration and mutual respect remain possible within the halls of Congress.
“At a time when public trust in democratic institutions is strained, it’s easy to overlook the day-to-day work of congressional offices,” said Jen Daulby, CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF). “At CMF, we’re committed to spotlighting what’s working in Congress and honoring the offices that go above and beyond in service to the American people.”
This year’s Democracy Awards highlighted offices that exemplify the highest standards of constituent service, innovation, and responsiveness. The honorees demonstrated that party lines do not define excellence in governance, but rather a shared commitment to the communities they represent.
Rep. Blake Moore (R-UT-01)Credit: CMF
Best of Constituent Service
Representative Blake Moore reflected on the significance of the award: “More than anything, this recognition is special to me because since my first day in office, I told myself and my team that constituent service will be the heart of everything we do.” His remarks underscored a theme echoed throughout the evening—public service as a calling rooted in empathy and action.
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA)Credit: CMF
Best of Constituent Correspondence & Outreach
Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock also shared a moment of pride and gratitude. “Last fall, I instructed my staff to use every tool at our disposal to communicate critical safety and support information to every affected Georgian,” he said. “This award recognizes my staff’s heroic service to Georgians across our state. In times of great hardship, Georgians can always count on me and my office to provide resources and support.”
Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-OK-05)Credit: CMF
Best of Innovation & Modernization
"This award is not mine alone," said Bice. "It is shared with amazing people who have supported me over the last two plus years." She said that her focus is on constituents and that "they're better served by a Congress that is equipped to work more efficiently."
The full list of the 2025 Democracy Awards winners can be found on the CMF website.
The 2025 Democracy Awards ceremony was more than a celebration—it was a reaffirmation of the values that sustain American democracy. In honoring those who serve with distinction, the event offered a glimpse of Congress at its best: principled, people-focused, and united in purpose.
The Bridge Alliance Education Fund, which funds the Fulcrum, is a co-founder of CMF’s Democracy Awards.
Workers hang a large photo of President Donald Trump next to a U.S. flag on the facade of the Department of Labor headquarters building in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 27, 2025.
For many, the evidence is in: Donald Trump wants to be an autocrat. If you haven’t read an op-ed or heard a radio, TV or podcast commentator make that case, it’s probably because you’ve tried hard to avoid doing so. It would require virtually never watching cable news, including pro-Trump outlets, because there are few things Fox News and its imitators love more than running clips of MSNBC hosts and other “resistance” types, not to mention Democratic politicians, melting down over Trump’s “war on democracy,” “authoritarian power-grabs,” etc.
Move further to the right, and you’ll find populists who want Trump to be an autocrat. They use terms like “Red Caesarism,” or “neomonarchism,” while others pine for an American Pinochet or Francisco Franco or compare Trump to biblical figures like the Persian King Cyrus or ancient Israel’s King David. I can’t really blame anyone for taking these pathetic Bonapartists at their word.
In fairness, Trump recently said “I’m not a dictator.” Though he did add that as president he can do “whatever I want.” Still, I know it’s a lot to ask, but let’s put aside the question of whether Trump actually wants to be a dictator.
There’s a lesser charge that is much easier to prove. Trump very much wants people to talk about him like he’s a dictator. Whether it’s cosplaying, trolling or something more sinister, his posturing is a surefire way to guarantee that people will talk about him and his strength because his detractors and defenders alike cannot resist it.
For instance, consider Trump’s executive order “banning” flag-burning. Friendly media covered it as an authentic ban and so did hostile media. The Associated Press headline blared, “Trump moves to ban flag burning despite Supreme Court ruling that Constitution allows it.” Fans cheered sticking it to the hippies, foes fretted about yet another violation of the Constitution by executive fiat.
But if you actually read the executive order, it’s not a ban. It’s almost entirely vaporous twaddle. It flatly says that the Justice Department should prosecute flag burning to “the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution” and state laws. It doesn’t criminalize flag burning because the president can’t do that.
The order has several possible purposes. Trump hopes friends and foes alike will believe he’s banned flag burning when he hasn’t. Strength! I suspect he also hopes this will goad protesters into burning the flag, giving him greater political pretext to use the National Guard to crush the longhairs.
Last week, a federal court — rightly — ruled that Trump exceeded his authority to levy some of his sweeping tariffs. In response, Trump claimed that, “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America” and “our military would be instantly obliterated.”
Now this is obvious nonsense. But if Trump believed it, there’s a very easy remedy at his disposal. He could simply ask the unprecedentedly pliant and obsequious Republican-controlled Congress to impose the tariffs he wants, thus saving the country from total destruction.
For the same reason the court vacated his tariffs — that power belongs to Congress — they would undoubtedly uphold them if Congress ratified them.
But Trump’s shown no interest in doing that. Why? Because then they wouldn’t be his tariffs anymore. Asking Congress for permission looks weak. It underscores the bedrock constitutional principle that American presidents aren’t autocrats, a principle he doesn’t want to seem beholden to.
Politically (and characterologically), this preference for the appearance of strength is perhaps Trump’s greatest weakness, because it prevents him from actually having a much longer-lasting impact. All of the executive orders — some good, some not — that his superfans think demonstrate his strength and dominance have a shelf life that ends with the next president. If he truly wanted to lay the foundation for a new “golden age” he’d be pestering Speaker Mike Johnson to put them all on the law books. But that would come at the price of looking weak in his mind.
Trump’s power grabs are not as unprecedented as his amen corner or his chorus of Cassandras believe. FDR and Woodrow Wilson declared war on constitutional and democratic “norms” arguably as often as Trump did. Nixon was no piker either.
But what does make Trump different is his desire to brag about it. Traditionally presidents seek to assure the public they are careful stewards of their constitutional oath.
Even if I’m right, none of this settles the issue of where all of this is heading. One of the consequences of pretending to be something is that, after a while, you’ll come to believe it yourself. Worse, a lot of Americans might decide they desire the fiction to become fact.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
What Makes Trump’s Power Grab Different? was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is republished with permission.