Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The populace and the politicians

Silhouette of an American Democratic politician speaks to his constituents, with the country's flag on the left
Andrea Nicolini/Getty Images

Chaleff is a speaker, innovative thinker and the author of “ To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers to Make or Brake a Toxic Leader.” This is the third entry in a series on political followership.

Saying that someone is a politician is not typically a compliment these days. Often, it is quite the opposite.

What a shame. Who do we want legislating and governing? Individuals with little skill for communicating? Who cannot compromise when they need to pass a policy solution to a real-world problem? Who doesn't understand the legislative process or the strategies for building a winning coalition?


Compare this to other areas of life. Why do we want certified electricians to do the wiring in our homes? Licensed heart surgeons to replace leaky valves? Those fluent in two languages to translate for world leaders in sensitive negotiations?

It’s because there is real skill required in these roles, and real consequences for the job being done wrong. Believe it or not, political leaders also need real skills. The stakes are also high. In a divided government, where the majority of one or both chambers of Congress represents a different party than the president, nothing can get accomplished without skillful politicians.

Of course, to be a politician in a democratic society, one needs to get elected and stay elected. This takes us back to leaders and their followers, which was the subject of my two previous writings. What kinds of followers are needed to elevate politicians who have the intention and skills to make positive things happen?

Let’s start our examination with what I previously described as the outer ring of political followers — the populace. What can they (we) do to identify and lift up politicians with the skills needed in the current political climate? For those of us who have not put our energy into political activism, the choices of who is on the ballot have already been made. So, what’s our role as responsible citizens in relation to these choices?

First of all, we need to stop being lazy. That’s a harsh thing to say, isn’t it? But here’s why I say it.

Too many of us overly rely on our self-identification — “I’m a Republican,” “I’m a Democrat,” “I’m a (fill in the blank).” That’s a shorthand way of making our political decision without needing to do much work. But if the activists have been successful in giving us highly polarized choices, casting our vote without further scrutiny may well elect an inept politician who will do more to gum up the governing process than to achieve results.

The second way of being “lazy” is to continually listen to the same news source. A big problem with that practice is that these days there are very few actual news sources. Far more often, we are listening to commentary from one end of the political spectrum or the other. Listening to a biased new source can make us feel righteously angry at the “other side” and superior about our “own side,” but falls short of helping us understand the issues as they impact people across the political range.

The solution? It’s what your mother told you about the food you need for your health: a balanced diet. The same applies to staying politically healthy: consume a balanced political information diet. Watch or listen to or stream or read political news from at least two, preferably three or four, sources coming from different points of view. Then (here’s the hard part) work out your own POV.

Sure, you’ll use your political beliefs as an important part of your decision making, but as you read or listen, you’ll also factor in such things as: Who carries a positive vision of the future that inspires engagement? Who is bringing relevant skills to the task of governing? Which candidate is committed to their values and is also a realist who knows the perfect is the enemy of the good? Who is committed to upholding and improving democratic processes to give us all a voice?

The third thing we can do is to use that voice. Use it in all the ways that sustaining our democracy requires. Mom was also a good guide for doing that: “Don’t shout. Use your language.”

Use your language in appropriate and courageous ways. Speak up when you hold a different perspective. Speak up if you see others being shut down. Shut up if the political leader is relying on hateful speech to rouse his followers — don’t cheer or collude with this. Even if everyone around you is shouting approval, hold your principled position. When the noise dies down, invite conversations where anyone who wants to tell their story can do so.

Early readers of “ To Stop a Tyrant reported one common response. They no longer felt powerless when up against forces larger than themselves. No force is larger than the individual who understands that it is always individuals who are the building block of movements for change, or movements of resistance.

Do not underestimate what the Czech playwright and politician Vaclav Havel called “the power of the powerless.” In recent months we have seen British voters throw out the Conservatives who had been the ruling party for 13 years. Students in Bangladesh forced the removal of their increasingly tyrannical prime minister. Arguably, President Joe Biden’s low poll ratings among potential voters (the populace) created the conditions in which party insiders convinced him to end his candidacy for a second term.

You have more power than you think if it is used in the window when action makes a difference — before a prototyrant has amassed the power of the full fledged tyrant.

If you are still not convinced, dive deeper into the book during the remaining days in this election cycle, or join me in the next installation when I discuss the activist circle of followers. Will that be you in that circle?



Read More

Why Trump’s antics don’t work on our allies

From left to right: Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and France's President Emmanuel Macron hold a meeting during a summit at Lancaster House on March 2, 2025, in London, England.

(Justin Tallis/WPA Pool/Getty Images/TNS)

Why Trump’s antics don’t work on our allies

It is among the most familiar patterns of the Trump era. First, the president says or does something weird, rude or otherwise norm-defying. Some elected Republicans object, and the response from Trump and his minions is to shoot the messenger. The dynamic holds constant whether it’s big (January 6 pardons) or small (tweeting “covfefe” just after midnight).

The essence of this low-road-for-me-high-road-for-thee dynamic rests on the belief that Trumpism is a one-way road. Insulting Trump, deservedly or not, is forbidden, while Trump’s antics should be celebrated when possible, defended when necessary, or ignored when neither of those responses is possible. But he should never, ever face consequences for his own actions.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump never actually had a plan

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, on March 23, 2026. President Donald Trump said Monday that there are "major points of agreement" in US- Iran talks which he said must result in Tehran giving up its nuclear ambitions and enriched uranium stockpile.

(TNS)

Trump never actually had a plan

US President Trump spoke at the Saudi Future Investment Initiative on Friday, March 27. He offered a pristine example of what he calls “the weave.” What detractors take for incontinent verbal rambling is, in his own telling, genius-level embroidery of a rhetorical mosaic.

While spinning his tapestry of soundbites, the wartime president declared that the Iranians “have to open up the Strait of Trump — I mean, Hormuz. Excuse me, for — I’m so sorry, such a terrible mistake. The fake news will say he ‘accidentally said’ (chuckle), now there’s no accidents with me. Not too many. If there were, we’d have a major story. No. Well, we had that with the Gulf of Mexico. Remember the Gulf of Mexico? And one day I said, ‘Why is it the Gulf of Mexico?’ ”

Keep ReadingShow less
Border Communities Know ICE’s Impunity All Too Well

Close-up of a rusty iron fence painted with stars and stripes at the American-Mexican border in Tijuana.

Border Communities Know ICE’s Impunity All Too Well

The Department of Homeland Security shutdown has officially passed one month as lawmakers continue to debate limits on ICE’s use of force. Though we’ve arrived at this legislative standoff due to aggressive, and sometimes fatal, immigration enforcement actions in cities in our country’s interior, for communities along the U.S.–Mexico border, such abuses are nothing new. As I reveal through my academic research, immigration agents have operated with near-total impunity at the border for decades.

I uncovered patterns of excessive violence, coercion, and abuse at land ports of entry, through which more than 200 million people including workers, students, and visitors legally enter the U.S. every single year. The link between agents’ actions on the streets of American cities and the way they operate at the southern border is inevitable—yet something the current conversation about ICE and potential reforms overlooks.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Exit Coalition: A Bipartisan Chance to Defend the Institution
us a flag on pole under cloudy sky

The Exit Coalition: A Bipartisan Chance to Defend the Institution

In the year marking the United States Semiquincentennial, dozens of members of Congress—from both parties—will quietly make a consequential decision: they will not return. Most coverage treats this as routine political churn—retirements, career moves, the normal rhythm of electoral life. But in a Congress defined by constraint and dysfunction, these departures create something rare and fleeting: freedom to act independently.

Fifty-plus lawmakers across the House and Senate are not seeking reelection in 2026—well above the typical 25 to 35 members who step aside in most election cycles. Republicans account for roughly 40 of those departures, including nearly 35 in the House. Some are retiring outright. Others are pursuing higher office. A smaller number are simply stepping away.

Keep ReadingShow less