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.
An image depicting a distorted or shattered mirror reflecting a distorted version of the American flag or iconic American landmarks
It is common in non-Trump circles to describe Trump as an inveterate, congenital liar. Throughout his campaigns and his presidency, his distorted perspective on facts—or outright lies—have been the underpinning of his combative arguments, And his forceful, passionate statements, whether distortions or lies, have become the truth for his followers. All real news and truth is regarded as "fake." Such is the power of "the big lie."
There is no need to site examples; they are legion. Most recently, though, this was observed when he fired the Director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming that the numbers were fudged. He felt he knew what the right numbers were.
The other day, the thought came to me that maybe Trump wasn't "lying." To lie implies that you know the truth and are purposely falsifying information. I have a feeling that Trump lives in an alternate reality where the truth is as he sees it. Whether it's the results of the 2020 election, the description of illegal immigrants, or the recent labor statistics, he knows/senses what to him is the truth; that is his reality. And since he is king/dictator, he is infallible and cannot be wrong. Anyone who says otherwise is, if under his control, fired, if not under his control, attacked.
I will use as an example of the ubiquitousness of this alternate reality Trump's Executive Order, "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." This is classic Trump—claiming to restore the truth when in fact he is the one who is destroying the truth. And In this instance, he is supported in his alternate reality by far-right scholars (see my post, "The Far-Right's Biggest Lie"). To make my point, I will go through the first paragraph of the Order sentence by sentence.
1. "Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth."
True, but ... there has indeed been an effort to rewrite our history, but it is Trump and MAGA adherents who, driven by ideology rather than the truth, have been trying to rewrite our history—whether in school textbooks or at national parks—to eliminate the unpleasant facts of our history.
And what are the objective facts of our history? The objective fact is that racism is part of our history and our present. The horror of slavery is a fact. It is a fact that our country, through military and other purposeful actions, nearly wiped out the Native American indigenous people. It is a fact that until 1920 women did not have the right to vote and they still have not achieved equality with their male peers. These are the facts Trump wants to deny.
2. "This revisionist movement seeks to undermine the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light. Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed."
But in fact, liberal scholars or textbook authors have not cast the achievements of this country, its founding principles, or its efforts to advance liberty, human rights, and happiness in a negative light. To say that America had and has problems—short-comings—in realizing its principle, does not demean them or America.
Noting or addressing these short-comings is also not an implication that America is "irredeemably flawed." Rather they are the result of our nation being a representative democracy and of our being, after all, human beings, with imperfections and failings. Liberals realize that the aspirations of the Declaration of Independence pictured a state of existence that no country in the world has to this day achieved. To say that America has not achieved that state is thus not to say that the country is flawed.
3. "Rather than fostering unity and a deeper understanding of our shared past, the widespread effort to rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame, disregarding the progress America has made and the ideals that continue to inspire millions around the globe."
Without question, societal divides have recently deepened. But not because of liberal efforts to acknowledge and address our country's problems; they have been doing this for decades, Likewise, there is nothing new in the fact that there are many in our country who still harbor feelings of racism and misogyny and act on those feelings
What is new is that a President has for the first time since WWII supported that part of our citizenry that rejects the right of all Americans to be equal in the sight of the law, as required by the 14th Amendment. It is Donald Trump who has deepened the divide and fostered a feeling of national shame.
The extent of racism still present in our country may be a source of sadness for many for whom the words of the Declaration of Independence have an almost spiritual power and for whom the goal of all people being treated with humanity is heart-felt. But that sadness does not denigrate or dispute the substantial progress that America has made nor deter us in our faith that one day Martin Luther King's dream will become reality..
As to America's ideals inspiring millions around the globe, while I believe that has been true throughout our history, despite our short-comings, under the current Trump administration, that beacon of light has been diminished (see my article,"America Is Losing Its Light").
Whether Trump's statements are knowing lies or a reflection of his alternate reality, the impact is the same. He and his followers are leading our country away from its history, away from its historic values, toward a self-centered perspective that fosters inhumanity and the disavowal that we—regardless of color, race, ethnicity, or sex—are all God's children, His creation, and so were created equal.
Unfortunately, Democrats have not focused the public's attention on all the untruths—lies—that Trump and his MAGA allies have used in influencing the public to adopt a distorted understanding of our founding principles as well as facts, whether of the everyday sort or scientific. This the Party must begin doing and do so in an organized manner—I have suggested a weekly Trump scorecard press conference (see my post, "Returning the Country to the People Scorecard")—so that the public has the information they need.
It is the Democratic Party's essential task to lead the country back to the future, to connect each and every American with the truth of our founding principles, and to show how, by implementing those principles through government policy, all Americans will be lifted up, regardless whether White or persons of color; male or female; rich, middle class, or poor; or other defining characteristic. (See my post, "Where Is the Democratic Party's Clarion Voice?")
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
New York City Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a rally at Lou Gehrig Plaza on September 02, 2025 in the South Bronx in New York City.
Zohran Mamdani’s improbable rise—from barely registering in the polls to winning a primary against all odds—has been called a miracle. A Muslim, unapologetically left, and unafraid to speak plainly about the Gaza genocide, Mamdani triumphed despite doing everything the political establishment insists is disqualifying. Against every expectation, he closed a thirty-point gap and prevailed.
And yet, as the establishment begins to circle around him, many on the left who have supported his anti-establishment insurgency feel the familiar sting of suspicion. We remember how Sanders faltered, how Warren splintered the movement, how Obama cut deals that weakened the base, how AOC voted for financing Israel’s Iron Dome even in the context of an unfolding genocide. Each disappointment reinforces the conviction that betrayal is inevitable. And the truth is that it is inevitable—not because politicians are uniquely weak or uniquely corrupt but because of the way our politics is currently structured.
Every politician in our political system today is an individual actor with agency. That agency means choice, and choice means divergence. No matter how aligned a representative may be with our values, at some point, inevitably, they will cast a vote, strike a compromise, or make a calculation that cuts against what we wanted. We don’t forget those moments. We sear them into memory, and we label them betrayal. That is why bitterness has become the permanent backdrop of our politics. We live in a cycle of disappointment, not because individuals are especially flawed but because the system compels them to decide in our name and inevitably at times against our will.
This reality explains the cynicism that so pervades political life. We assume every handshake is a sellout, every meeting a concession, every alliance a slippery slope. Cynicism becomes the armor we wear to shield ourselves from disappointment. But in wearing it so tightly, we often turn it inward, sabotaging our own efforts before they can bear fruit. History is littered with examples of this pattern.
In 1968, after Lyndon Johnson stepped aside, the anti-war movement had a chance to consolidate around Eugene McCarthy or Robert Kennedy. Instead, activists tore into one another over ideological purity and strategy. By the time Kennedy was assassinated and the Democratic convention imploded in Chicago, the movement had fractured, handing Richard Nixon the presidency and prolonging the Vietnam War. Occupy Wall Street, too, began with clarity—“We are the 99%”—and electrified millions. But because it refused to channel that energy into lasting political structures, it splintered into debates and purity contests, made vulnerable to infiltration but undone mostly by its own refusal to resist suspicion and build resilience. Even the Sanders campaigns carry this lesson. In 2016 and again in 2020, parts of the left turned their fury not just against the party that rigged the process but against each other. That self-directed suspicion made retreat easier and defeat more certain.
The common thread is not simply betrayal by leaders but the inevitability of betrayal in a system built on agency. Every representative, no matter how sincere, will eventually diverge from the people they represent. When they do, we feel betrayed. When the betrayals accumulate, cynicism calcifies. And when cynicism dominates, movements collapse under the weight of their own mistrust.
But what if betrayal were no longer built into the system? What if votes in Congress were not the product of a single arbiter’s judgment but the direct reflection of citizen majorities? In such a system, a representative would not be an agent with discretion but a conduit. No calculation, no triangulation, no deal-making—only the tallying of where the people stand. The majority asserted its will, and that would be the end of the story. In such a system, the notion that one is betrayed by their representative because they cast a vote that was not to their liking would make no sense. The majority’s will was asserted, and that is the end of that. The representative had no say in the matter.
In other words, betrayal—in the sense we know it today—would simply vanish, because there would be nothing to betray. And with it, cynicism would dissolve too. The suspicion that shadows every alliance and every strategic decision would lose its grounding. If power were tethered directly to majorities, the old vocabulary of compromise and betrayal and backstabbing would be emptied of meaning. In such a politics, today’s cynicism would evaporate.
For now, of course, we do not live in such a world. Mamdani, like every politician, must still navigate terrain full of allies and adversaries, where betrayal remains not just possible but mathematically certain. That does not mean we abandon him or retreat into isolation. To refuse to engage with figures like Obama or Warren, or to close doors out of fear of contamination, would not be principled but paralysis. Power is never won by refusing to step onto the field. It is won by entering it with clear eyes, recognizing that betrayal is baked into the structure, and still pushing forward.
The task before us, then, is twofold. First, to tactically resist the temptation to sabotage ourselves with reflexive cynicism—to recognize that suspicion alone cannot be the foundation of a movement. Second, to keep alive the strategic vision of a politics beyond betrayal, where representatives no longer act as free agents but as direct reflections of the people they serve. That vision is not naïve. It is the only way to imagine a politics in which cycles of bitterness and disappointment do not consume us.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.
Nobody asked for soldiers on their streets. Yet President Trump sent 2,000 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C.—and now he’s threatening the same in Chicago and New York. The problem isn’t whether crime is up or down (it’s down). The problem is that governors didn’t request it, mayors didn’t sign off, and residents certainly didn’t take to the streets begging for troops. Yet here we are, watching as the president becomes “mayor-in-chief,” turning American cities into props for his reality-TV spectacle of power, complete with all the theatrics that blur politics with entertainment.
D.C. has always been uniquely vulnerable because of the Home Rule Act. The president can activate its National Guard without consulting the mayor. That’s troubling enough, but now Trump is floating deployments in Illinois and New York—states where he has no such authority. The principle at stake isn’t whether troops can reduce crime; it’s whether the federal government can unilaterally occupy a city whose leaders and citizens told it to stay away.
This federal overreach only sharpens the next point: the hypocrisy is so brazen it’s as if Republicans have stopped even trying to conceal it. These are the same politicians who shriek about “tyranny” whenever a Democrat signs an executive order. Think of the recent hair-on-fire theatrics over Obama’s DACA order, or the anguished howls when Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord. Yet when their president decides to send troops into cities during peacetime—something no modern Democrat has ever dared—they fall silent. The self-proclaimed guardians of local control and small government morph into cheerleaders for the biggest federal power grab in decades. Apparently, “limited government” only applies when a Democrat is in office.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t “help.” It’s overreach dressed up as public safety. Troops on the streets erode the principle of local self-rule, turning cities into backdrops for presidential theater. Once normalized, the presence of soldiers in everyday civic life stops feeling extraordinary. Today it’s D.C., tomorrow it’s Chicago, and after that—why not anywhere a president decides the optics are good?
History tells us how badly this ends and why normalizing troop deployments today only increases the risk of repeating those same mistakes. Kent State. Portland. Deployments that inflamed tensions rather than restored calm, leaving communities more fractured than before. And it isn’t just Trump who benefits. Future presidents—Democrat or Republican—will inherit these precedents. By staying silent now, GOP lawmakers are essentially handing unchecked executive power on a silver platter to the executive branch for whoever comes next.
And this isn’t just an American story. Putin deployed Russia’s National Guard to crush protests and reframe dissent as a security crisis. Erdoğan turned Turkey’s public squares into showcases of force during Gezi Park. Duterte blurred the line between policing and military occupation in the Philippines’ so-called “War on Drugs.” The playbook is clear: when leaders use troops as stage props, democracy is what gets trampled.
Faith communities and labor unions have already shown how broad coalitions can resist federal overreach. During the Trump administration’s travel ban, churches, synagogues, and mosques joined hands with airport workers and unions to demand change—proof that civil society has the reach and moral authority to fight back when government power goes too far.
If Congress won’t defend its role, civil society has to. That means:
Recent history shows this is possible. In Portland during the 2020 federal deployments, community organizations and legal advocates worked together to document abuses, challenge them in court, and sustain public opposition. Civil society must be prepared to do the same again.
Once we accept soldiers in the streets as normal, democracy itself becomes abnormal. Local governments fade into irrelevance, federalism shrinks to a slogan, and residents lose any say in how their communities are policed. That’s not “law and order.” That’s command and control—the stuff of Russia and Hungary.
So let’s not mince words: deploying troops into cities that never asked for them is an occupation, not assistance. And if GOP politicians won’t say it because they’re too busy polishing their conservative credentials by attacking wokeness on college campuses, civil society must. If it fails, the precedent of unilateral militarization will harden, leaving future presidents free to bypass communities entirely and putting the foundations of American democracy at even greater risk. Our answer has to be clear: Our streets are not your stage. Our safety, our voice, our choice. If Trump wants a show, he can stage another parade—not occupy our cities.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
The Oval Office is set for a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store at the White House on April 24, 2025 in Washington, DC.
I commend news agency columnists who publish research-based and value-added (versus “my opinion”) op-eds on a daily or frequent basis. Submitting an occasional essay allows me time to ponder contemporary issues and explore the latest hot topic.
Since Aug. 6, Perplexity and Google have helped me examine over 30 documents to determine the best and worst U.S. presidential cabinets. Based upon academic studies and expert analysis, here are the results.
While determining cabinet strengths and weaknesses can be debatable, broad research-based consensus, historical investigation, and political science scholarship supports a generally accepted conclusion to judging the quality of a presidential cabinet. Some key components include: expertise, competence, experience, operational effectiveness, ethical standards, scandals, internal White House diversity, and the ability for cabinet members to challenge the president without repercussions.
Several other dimensions to assess cabinet performance across U.S. presidencies include: turnover rates, public opinion and approval ratings, vacancy rates, delays in appointments, effectiveness of cabinet members’ actions, and the ability to maintain stability and implement policy.
Five different and independent research studies summarized that U.S. presidential cabinets can be compared, contrasted, and evaluated based upon three factors: 1) stable, low-turnover, and well-staffed cabinets are generally seen as higher performing, 2) high-turnover and high-vacancy cabinets are associated with decreased effectiveness, and 3) appointment of experts and diverse talent correlates with improved policy outcomes and cabinet success.
The following presidential cabinets are widely regarded as among the best in U.S. history:
1. Abraham Lincoln’s (Rep., 1861-1865) cabinet—known as the Team of Rivals—with people like William Seward, Salmon Chase, and Edwin Stanton, challenged yet complemented Lincoln, helping with the Union’s victory and abolition of slavery.
2. George Washington’s (no political party, 1789-1797) cabinet included Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph, which Lindsay Chervinsky and other historians point to as a foundational model for effective executive leadership.
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s (Dem., 1933-1945) cabinet included Frances Perkins (first female cabinet secretary) and Henry Morgenthau Jr., who helped shape and implement the New Deal policies and guide America through World War II.
Historical surveys cite the following presidential cabinets among the worst in U.S. history, predominantly due to issues of incompetence, corruption, and scandal:
1. Warren G. Harding’s (Rep., 1921-1923) cabinet is widely regarded as the worst of the worst due to the infamous Teapot Dome scandal, widespread corruption among cabinet members, and for exemplifying poor cabinet selection due to cronyism and misconduct.
2. Ulysses S. Grant’s (Rep., 1869-1877) cabinet was plagued by corruption, the Whiskey Ring scandal, the Crédit Mobilier affair, and unethical governance.
3. Donald J. Trump’s (Rep., 2017-2021 and 2025-2029) cabinets have been widely criticized for their lack of qualifications, record-setting high turnover rates, appointments based on loyalty over capability, conflicts of interest, stark public dissatisfaction, and poorly vetted appointees, but approved by Republican Senators.
Research is replete that turnover rates of presidential appointments are an indicator of presidential performance and a concrete indicator of stability. High cabinet turnover has significant negative consequences for governance and leadership effectiveness, such as loss of institutional memory, loss of expertise, lack of cohesion, and stalled initiatives.
Frequent cabinet turnover has serious consequences. It disrupts policy formation, diminishes efficiency, harms morale, undermines public trust, and weakens agency autonomy and long-term strategic capabilities.
During Trump’s first presidency, a record turnover occurred with 20 of his 24 cabinet picks either quitting or being “de-hired” by Trump. Furthermore, 92 percent of the 65 people who were on Trump’s 2017-2021 “A Team” left their appointed office.
During the first 200 days of Trump’s 2.0 administration, he’s already had turnover in seven key positions, notably Cameron Hamilton, Carla Hayden, Elon Musk, Shira Perlmutter, Vivek Ramaswamy, Drew Snyder, and Mike Waltz. Trump also had to withdraw five cabinet nominations from Senate consideration (U.S. News & World Report).
From a cabinet member’s perspective, Trump’s two attempts at being president are near the bottom of 47 presidencies. Rigorous historical research would suggest this does not bode well that the 2025-2029 time period will be successful.
With all of the chaos, uncertainty, dictatorial behavior, flip-flopping, and 192 executive orders, 47 memoranda, and 79 proclamations brought to the table by Mr. Trump since Jan. 20 and controversial cabinet member actions, the proverb “hope springs eternal” has to be Americans’ guide to find optimism. A second proverb—“you reap what you sow”—is before Mr. Trump and the GOP Senators who approved the cabinet nominations.
Let’s face reality. A cabinet that ranks historically low with respect to competence, ethical standards, experience, and other competency criteria makes the U.S. vulnerable to a multitude of operational inefficiencies, policy blunders, ethical mishaps, scandals, conflicts of interest, conspiracies, and foreign intervention. Americans are in a situation where only time will tell the outcome.
