Seth David Radwell left a successful career as an executive in the consumer goods industry to find the root of polarization in American politics. His journey led him all the way back to the enlightenment.
In this episode, Seth discusses his book "American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation", which documents the historical origins of todays political fault lines and how we can keep them from breaking the country apart.
political polarization
In the column, "Is Donald Trump Right?", Fulcrum Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, wrote:
For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.
Is Donald Trump right?
Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?
Balta invited readers to share their thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
Brenda Marinace from Maryland shared these thoughts...
I found this article disappointing. The Fulcrum standards aim to expand their reach, remove personal bias, avoid vilifying any party, and build bridges through a solutions-based approach.
This article seems more like a challenge than an honest request. I cannot imagine any Republican even reading the Fulcrum, much less responding to your challenge. It appears to dismiss the 77 million Americans, presuming them to be wrong and defying them to come up with support for President Trump. It’s not inviting at all.
I have spent years working toward returning respect across the country, imploring our legislators to lead the way as self-serving rhetoric only builds anger and violence and enables retribution. The Fulcrum has published several of my articles. Without respect, without open dialogue, we cannot bridge build.
Please accept that others have a right to their beliefs as well. My career was in protecting Florida’s unique environment. We could have hated and vilified those paving our lands. Instead, we chose inclusion. Civil engineers helped develop wetland protection. Developers helped ID sensitive areas, thus freeing others for development. Our government included us in land use planning. In fact, Elliott Mackle of the famed Mackle Brothers, who developed several cities in Florida, was once elected our President. We respected each other, and Floridians benefited from it.
I will not take the bait regarding whether President Trump is right. I do not know, and neither do you. That’s the point. How about honestly interviewing and presenting unbiased viewpoints? Making him the enemy, making 77 million Americans the enemy, humiliating or excoriating him and them is not inclusive. My Republican friends want democracy saved as well, and some believe Democrats are the problem. I fear your mindset will not permit other such viewpoints, however.
You included many reasons why you feel the way you do. I, too, am a granddaughter of an immigrant who raised me. Of my six married grandchildren, five are married to recent immigrants from various countries. I was also a columnist for a major newspaper, with columns in five or six other fourth estate venues. My husband was a New Yorker, and we lived in the Chicago area for 10 years recently, with a daughter, granddaughter, and great-granddaughter still living there.
We desperately need respect returned. As I wrote this, I glanced up to see a brawl break out among some National League football players. The lack of respect, sportsmanship, is so overwhelming.
Please help the Fulcrum lead the way to understanding and grace.
We invite you to read the opinions of other Fulrum Readers who accepted Hugo's invitation.
Also, check out "Is Donald Trump Right?" and consider sharing your thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.
We offer this platform for discussion and debate.
In the column, "Is Donald Trump Right?", Fulcrum Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, wrote:
For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.
Is Donald Trump right?
Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?
Balta invited readers to share their thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
Joe Kaul from Colorado shared these thoughts...
My Father and his 5 brothers fought in World War II.
He came home with 4 brothers and one eye out of commission.
All you have to do to answer your question is to answer this question through the lens of the Greatest Generation.
Take one example: the disgusting attempted overthrow of our government on Jan 6, 2021. The men and women who defended our country and the world against fascism overseas would tell you in no uncertain terms that this was the most un-American thing ever done by a sitting President. Full Stop.
So my point here is that if you were not mortified by this group of thugs attacking our US Capitol, then I suppose you can tolerate just about anything that Trump does to "Get his way" with US policies.
Well, I got news for you: once you accept that type of treasonous behavior, you have just said to the Greatest Generation, "You and your sacrifices don't matter to me and my MAGA friends." Maybe in this twisted, self-serving light, Trump is right.
Trump's trade war with China is on the verge of costing American Farmers their livelihoods and seriously endangering our nation's food supply.
U.S. farmers produce 40% more AG products than we can consume in the US, so overseas markets are crucial.
Last year (2025), China bought $12 billion in soybeans alone from US farmers.
Since Trump decided to punch them in the nose, China has bought $0.00 of AG soybeans from US farmers.
This same scenario played out in the first Trump administration, so he had to give them a $10 billion aid package to bail them out.
While he may try this approach again, it is not even close to a long-term solution.
You see, there is something called "Trust" in a supply chain. When a large market like China loses trust in the US AG market, they have no choice but to turn to alternative markets like Brazil and Argentina for their Ag products. When trust erodes and new supply chains are formed with new partners, it takes years, if not decades, to rebuild those relationships.
By then, sadly, many of our US farmers —the backbone of rural America —will likely have no choice but to "sell the farm."
So maybe we should start asking US Farmers if Trump is right, since he has screwed up these important supply chains both times in office.
We invite you to read "Is Donald Trump Right?" and accept Hugo's invitation to share your thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.
We offer this platform for discussion and debate.
U.S. President Donald Trump walks to the White House after stepping off Marine One on the South Lawn on October 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.
When Trump assumed the presidency again, one of his stated aims was to make the government smaller, whether by getting rid of federal employees, cutting "unnecessary" allocated funds and grants, or limiting the scope of the government's work.
So on the one hand, Trump and his MAGA allies are very anti-federal, traditional, big government. And Trump has, through his executive orders and DOGE, stopped much of the work that the federal government has done or has funded for decades—work that supports people in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the common good. (See my post, "Trump's Destruction of Government.") It is the culmination of Ronald Reagan's mantra: Government is not the solution; government is the problem.
On the other hand, Trump has made the federal government (the executive branch) more intrusive in the lives of America's people, businesses, and local governments than perhaps ever before. Among those actions are:
This is not a man who seeks to make the federal government smaller in terms of its impact and intrusiveness. He only wants to do that in certain policy areas—he is against the traditionally progressive action of the federal government. But he is more than willing—eager—to use the power of the federal government to subdue those elements that he is against and to carry out policies that he is in favor of.
This is yet another example of Trump's hypocrisy—he is only true to what he thinks is in his best interest; there is no larger philosophy that he is devoted to. And so he seems capricious in his actions, veering one way one day, and in another direction the next day. His only loyalty is to himself.
When our country was founded, one of the main points of contention between the various delegates to the Constitutional Convention was how strong the federal government should be vis-à-vis the states. After the weak Articles of Confederation failed, the current Constitution was drafted, giving much more power to the federal government.
Conservatives have always been against "big" government, which is to say a government that helped those in need, helped people make the most of themselves, and regulated business to protect the public good is a progressive government. That is what Trump has been dismantling.
But some Founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, also worried about the stronger central government taking away individual rights, which is why he proposed the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Trump paints himself as a big supporter of individual rights—but that applies only to his rights and the rights of his supporters; those who oppose him have no rights in his view (as an example, Kimmel has no right of free speech to criticize Trump).
While Trump is making the helping part of the federal government smaller, he is creating a different "big" government, using the government to control what people do, intruding in their lives; using the military to usurp the power of local government; and interpreting the law so as to enable the aggrandizement of his power. What he has been doing in his second term is Orwellian in scope. This is very much what the Founding Fathers feared, and what they tried to prevent.
The Founders were also adamantly against anything in the structure of the new government that would allow the development of an executive with the power of a king—which is to say almost absolute power. (See my post, "Why the Declaration of Independence Argues for the Removal of Trump.") Which is why the Constitution was drafted with a carefully defined balance of power between the three independent branches of government—legislative, judicial, and executive. But Trump is seeking to make the other branches subservient to him—he has already rendered the legislative branch virtually impotent and is attempting to control the judicial branch.
The Declaration of Independence is, in large part, a recitation of the colonists' grievances against the king's exercise of absolute power over the colonies—greater power than he had over English citizens. That is why the Declaration states that the government derives its power "from the consent of the governed." This, as opposed to the divine right of kings.
True, Trump was elected, fairly, by not just carrying the Electoral College but a slim majority of the popular vote. (He would not be the first autocrat in the world who was elected into office by the people.) But regardless of their consent, or what he would call "mandate," the governed cannot give consent to violate the Constitution.
Here again, as I've urged in other posts, it is the task of the Democratic Party to bring these facts to the attention of the public in an organized, effective manner. While at the same time, showing their own bonafides in implementing the promise of the Declaration of Independence.
Thomas Jefferson was worried about the potential power of the federal government and of a single individual within that government—Donald Trump is his nightmare come alive.
An Independent Voter's Perspective on Current Political Divides
In the column, "Is Donald Trump Right?", Fulcrum Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, wrote:
For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.
Is Donald Trump right?
Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?
Balta invited readers to share their thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
David Levine from Portland, Oregon, shared these thoughts...
I am an independent voter who voted for Kamala Harris in the last election.
I pay very close attention to the events going on, and I try and avoid taking other people's opinions as fact, so the following writing should be looked at with that in mind:
Is Trump right? On some things, absolutely.
As to DEI, there is a strong feeling that you cannot fight racism with more racism or sexism with more sexism. Standards have to be the same across the board, and the idea that only white people can be racist is one that I think a lot of us find delusional on its face. The question is not whether we want equality in the workplace, but whether these systems are the mechanism to achieve it, despite their claims to virtue, and many of us feel they are not.
I think if the Democrats want to take back immigration as an issue then every single illegal alien no matter how they are discovered needs to be processed and sanctuary cities need to end, every single illegal alien needs to be found at that point Democrats could argue for an amnesty for those who have shown they have been Good actors for a period of time but the dynamic of simply ignoring those who break the law by coming here illegally is I think a losing issue for the Democrats, they need to bend the knee and make a deal.
I think you have to quit calling the man Hitler or a fascist because an actual fascist would simply shoot the protesters, the journalists, and anyone else who challenges him. And while he definitely has authoritarian tendencies, the Democrats are overplaying their hand using those words, and it makes them look foolish.
Most of us understand that the tariffs are a game of economic chicken, and whether it is successful or not depends on who blinks before the midterms. Still, the Democrats' continuous attacks on the man make them look disloyal to the country, not to Trump.
Referring to any group of people as marginalized is to many of us the same as referring to them as lesser, and it seems racist and insulting.
We invite you to read the opinions of other Fulrum Readers:
Trump's Policies: A Threat to Farmers and American Values
The Trump Era: A Bitter Pill for American Renewal
Federal Hill's Warning: A Baltimorean's Reflection on Leadership
Also, check out "Is Donald Trump Right?" and consider accepting Hugo's invitation to share your thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.
We offer this platform for discussion and debate.