In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses thermostatic politics to explain what it means and how it works.
Podcast: What is thermostatic politics?
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Agents draw their guns after loud bangs were heard during the White House Correspondents' dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. President Trump is attending the annual gala of the political press for the first time while in office.
(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)
Whenever political violence erupts, Washington starts playing the blame game
May 02, 2026
A heavily armed California man was caught trying to storm the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday with the apparent intent to kill the president.
It didn’t take long for Washington to start arguing. Democrats denounce violent rhetoric from the right, but the alleged assailant seemed to be inspired by his own rhetoric. President Trump, after initially offering some unifying remarks about defending free speech, soon started accusing the press of encouraging violence against him. Critics pounced on the hypocrisy.
The argument about hypocrisy isn’t about mere inconsistency. The point of the accusation is to say that condemnations of violence are insincere. “Your team says it’s against violence” or “your side says my side encourages violence” but just look at what your language inspired!
The hypocrisy is bipartisan.
Indeed, for two decades now, it seems that whenever political violence erupts, there’s a moment where partisans wait to learn the motives of the perpetrator so they can start blaming the other side for inciting it. Sometimes they don’t even wait. Jared Loughner, the man who shot former Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed several others, was instantaneously labeled an agent of the tea parties and Sarah Palin. The truth is he was such a paranoid schizophrenic, a court found him incompetent to stand trial.
I don’t have the space to run through the dozens of examples — the congressional baseball shooting, the Charleston AME church slaughter, the El Paso Walmart massacre, the recent murder of Minnesota lawmakers, the Jan. 6 riot or the failed attack Saturday night. But in the wake of these bloody crimes, partisans of left and the right will scour the killer’s social media or read their “manifestos” and place the blame on the rhetoric of the team closest to the assailant’s ideology.
Now, my point isn’t to say that blaming the rhetoric of nonviolent people for the crimes of violent people is wrong. It is wrong, of course, particularly as a matter of law. If I quote Shakespeare and write, “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” I am not responsible for someone who actually shoots a lawyer (nor is the Bard). But that doesn’t mean violent, extremist rhetoric is laudable, healthy or blameless for the sorry state of American politics or society or that it never plays a role in inspiring wrongdoing.
However such rhetoric might encourage violence, it certainly encourages the sense that something is broken in American life. More specifically, it fuels the idea that our political opponents are existential enemies.
“Outgroup homogeneity” is the term social psychologists use to describe the very human tendency to think the groups you belong to are diverse and complex, but the groups you don’t belong to aren’t. A non-Asian person might think all Asians are alike, but for Asians the differences between — or among! — Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indian people are both obvious and significant.
American politics right now are almost defined by outgroup homogeneity. Many Democrats and progressives think all Republicans and conservatives are alike, and vice versa. That would be bad enough, but the problem is compounded by the fact that each side tends to think the consensus on the other side is defined by their worst actors and spokespeople. This is sometimes called “nutpicking.” You find the most extreme person on the other side and hold them up as representative of all Democrats or Republicans.
Partisan media amplifies this dynamic at scale. Pew finds that Republicans (who watch Fox News) are more familiar with the term “critical race theory” than Democrats, the supposed devotees of it. Democrats recognize the term “Christian nationalist” more than supposedly Christian nationalist Republicans do.
Consider the recent debates over Hasan Piker and Nick Fuentes, both prominent social media influencers, one far left the other far right, who say grotesque, indefensible and stupid things. The arguments within the two coalitions are not over whether they should be spokesmen for their respective sides, but whether their “voices” (and fans) should be welcome inside the broader Democratic or Republican tents. Few accommodationists endorse the worst rhetoric from Piker or Fuentes, but they oppose “purity tests.”
On the merits, I think both should be shunned and condemned. But even if the question is purely a political one, they should still be ostracized. Why? Because people outside the respective coalitions will — however fairly or unfairly — hold up the extremists on the fringe as representative of the whole. The only way for either party to prove it opposes extremism to people outside the tent is by opposing it inside their own tents first. Otherwise, their hypocrisy will continue to define them.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
soldiers in truck
Photo by Diego González on Unsplash
Fulcrum Roundtable: ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent
Apr 30, 2026
Congress and the Trump administration are locked in an escalating fight over presidential war powers as President Donald Trump continues military action against Iran without congressional authorization, prompting renewed debate over the limits of executive authority.
Julie Roland, a ten-year Navy veteran and frequent contributor to The Fulcrum, joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable, where she expressed deep concerns regarding the Trump administration’s impact on military nonpartisanship and the rights of service members.A former helicopter pilot and lieutenant commander, Roland has used her weekly column to highlight what she describes as a systemic attempt to stifle dissent within the armed forces.
- YouTube youtu.be
In her March article, “Speak Now or Forever War,” Roland examined how the administration’s rhetoric creates a "chilling effect" on those still in uniform. She emphasized that while service members take a sacred oath to the Constitution, they also have a legal obligation to refuse unlawful orders.
"If you are given an order that's unconstitutional or that you believe to be illegal, the rules are stated as that you must in fact disobey that order," she said. Roland noted that this duty becomes an "impossible burden" for young recruits who may lack the legal background to identify unconstitutional commands in high-pressure situations.
Roland was particularly critical of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, accusing him of using "violent rhetoric" that does not represent the broader military culture. She argued that Hegseth and the President have actively worked to exclude the media to avoid accountability.
"I think there's enough evidence to suggest that between Secretary Hegseth and Trump, there's been an active effort to push the media out in order to reduce transparency and accountability of what the military is doing," she stated.The interview also touched upon the "unprecedented" deployment of troops to American cities like Los Angeles and Minneapolis. Roland argued these actions delegitimize public trust by making the military appear as a "political arm" of the Trump administration.
This perceived politicization, combined with low public confidence, poses a long-term national security risk by damaging recruitment and retention. Roland warned that soldiers who joined to defend the nation may become "disenchanted" when sent to deploy in American neighborhoods."The press are doing their jobs to try to have transparency... while the Pentagon seems to be, at least Secretary Hegseth seems to be, deliberately trying to not let us know exactly what's going on," she concluded.Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
Keep ReadingShow less
House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss., says the committee is committed to accountability for members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
(Photo by Samantha Freeman, MNS)
Florida Democrat resigns, moments before the Ethics Committee was supposed to weigh her expulsion
Apr 25, 2026
WASHINGTON – Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from the House of Representatives on Tuesday, moments before the full Ethics Committee convened to weigh expulsion for allegedly stealing millions of dollars and funneling some into her congressional campaign.
Cherfilus-McCormick was not present at the hearing. “After careful reflection and prayer, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of my constituents and the institution that I step aside at this time,” her statement read.
Cherfilus-McCormick is the third congressional leader to resign since April 13. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned last week, following sexual assault allegations and discussions of expulsion at Capitol Hill.
“If members that conduct, bad conduct, whatever that conduct may be—we’ve seen sexual misconduct, we’ve seen financial misconduct—that those members are going to be held accountable,” House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss.
In March, a special subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee found Cherfilus-McCormick guilty of 25 ethics violations. She also faces a criminal trial in South Florida, scheduled for February 2027.
Cherfilus-McCormick said she’s not guilty of the ethics violations or the criminal charges.
“Rather than play these political games, I choose to step away,” she said in a follow-up statement, calling the Ethics investigation a “witch hunt.”
The Ethics Committee is also investigating Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who has been accused of domestic violence, sexual misconduct, stolen valor, and profiting from federal contracts while in office.
Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a resolution Monday calling for the expulsion of Mills.
“The swamp has protected Cory Mills for far too long and we are done letting it slide,” Mace said in a statement. “Any Member who votes to keep him here is voting to protect a woman beater and a fraud. He needs to be expelled immediately.”
In response, Mills told NOTUS he is considering an expulsion resolution against Mace over an interaction that she had at Charleston International Airport in October 2025, where she berated TSA officials.
Mills has denied any wrongdoing, calling the allegations politically motivated.
Guest said the investigation into Mills is ongoing and reiterated the committee’s dedication to holding members of Congress accountable on both sides of the aisle.
“We want individuals to have trust in their elected officials,” Guest said. “And I think as members of Congress, we should be held to a higher standard than the general public.”
Samantha Freeman is a graduate politics, policy and foreign affairs journalism student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.
Keep ReadingShow less
Veterans, military family members, and supporters occupy the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill calling upon the Trump administration to end the war on Iran on April 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Leigh Vogel
Trump’s Iran “Victory” Echoes Iraq’s "Mission Accomplished"
Apr 24, 2026
It didn’t exactly end well the last time a president declared victory this quickly. On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit, strutted across the deck for the cameras, then changed into a suit and tie, stood in front of a banner that read “Mission Accomplished,” and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. It was 43 days after the invasion began. Over the next eight years, as the conflict devolved into a protracted insurgency and sectarian war, more than 4,300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.
On April 7, Trump—presumably not wearing a flight suit—declared in a telephone interview with AFP that the United States had achieved victory in Iran. “Total and complete victory. 100 percent. No question about it.” This was the day after the President threatened to destroy a “whole civilization,” hours after a two-week ceasefire was announced. It took six days for the whole thing to fall apart. By April 15, he was back on Fox Business: “We've beaten them militarily, totally. I think it’s close to over.”
In fact, Trump has been declaring some degree of victory since the first bombs. At a rally in Kentucky two weeks in, he told the crowd, “We won. We won the… in the first hour, it was over,” then seemed to catch himself and add, “We got to finish the job, right?” A few days later, he told reporters aboard Air Force One that the US had “essentially defeated Iran” while clumsily allowing they could “have a little bit of fight back.” After a call with Vladimir Putin, he said, “The war is very complete, pretty much.” When the Wall Street Journal's editorial board called it a premature win, he posted, “Actually, it is a Victory.” Asked about negotiations, he said, “Regardless what happens, we win.”
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated air campaign against Iran, assassinating Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and striking military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure across the country. Thirty-eight days later, Trump announced a ceasefire brokered by Pakistan, declaring that the US had “already met and exceeded all Military objectives.” The facts on the ground are harder to square with that claim, in part because the administration never settled on a clear definition of victory to begin with.
The war aims have shifted and contradicted throughout the conflict: freedom for the Iranian people, elimination of Iran’s nuclear program, regime change, the unconditional surrender of the Iranian government, and, as Trump put it in one post, peace “throughout the Middle East and, indeed, the world.”
No formal authorization for the use of military force has been requested from or passed by Congress. The administration never provided the American people with anything resembling an imminent threat, the legal threshold that would allow a president to launch an attack without congressional authorization. The 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 expires next week on May 1. The Senate has now voted five times to block war powers resolutions, each attempt failing predictably along party lines, with Rand Paul the only Republican voting to end the war and John Fetterman the only Democrat voting to continue it. But cracks are beginning to show: Senators Susan Collins and Thom Tillis have both signaled they may not authorize continued operations past the deadline. It is an illegal, undeclared war, launched unilaterally by a man who seems to believe the presidency should have the power of a monarchy, and Congress has spent nearly two months proving him right.
The war has been costly to both countries. Thirteen American service members have been killed and approximately 373 wounded, many severely. The Pentagon has been actively manipulating those figures. During the ceasefire, it inexplicably subtracted 15 wounded-in-action troops from the official count without explanation, with two Pentagon spokespersons unable to account for the discrepancy. A defense official described the practice to The Intercept as a “casualty cover-up.” On the Iranian side, more than 3,500 people have been killed, including 1,665 civilians, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency. On the first day of the war, a girls’ elementary school in Minab was struck, killing scores of children.
The Pentagon estimates it has spent roughly $28 billion, and the administration is still seeking up to $100 billion more from Congress. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which the International Energy Agency called the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market, has sent gas prices past $4 a gallon. The full extent of the damage to the global economy, from supply chains to food prices to markets that haven't yet absorbed the shock, probably won’t be known for years.
Adam Kinzinger, the former Republican congressman and Air Force veteran, put it plainly in a social media post: “The people of Iran aren’t free. Iran can now charge tolls. The nuclear material sits EXACTLY where it did, in the same amount, since June. The regime is still in place with a younger ayatollah. Iran was still launching missiles, now with more money to rebuild. Period.”
He’s right on every count. Trump declared “complete and total regime change,” but the assassinated Supreme Leader’s more hard-line son, Mojtaba Khamenei, was quickly installed as the new ayatollah, and the IRGC that runs the war still runs the country. Trump told the nation last June that Operation Midnight Hammer had already eliminated Iran’s nuclear capabilities, then went to war again over the same nuclear program. The uranium is still in the ground in Isfahan. As of the IAEA's last inspection in June of 2025, Iran had 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, enough for roughly ten nuclear weapons. That material remains unaccounted for. The IAEA has been denied access to Iran’s bombed nuclear facilities since February 28 and cannot verify the current status of the enriched uranium stockpile, meaning no one outside Tehran knows whether that material has been moved, used, or further processed. Trump himself acknowledged post-ceasefire that “nothing has been touched from the date of attack.” The authoritarian theocracy that imprisoned and killed thousands of protesters in January is still governing. Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was international waters under de facto US Navy control. Under the ceasefire terms, Iran would coordinate passage and collect fees on every vessel.
Both sides are claiming they won, and when both sides claim victory after 38 days of war that has left thousands dead, and no measurable change in the nuclear threat that was one of the stated reasons for fighting, the word that comes to mind is stalemate, not victory. If anything, Iran may come out of this conflict stronger than it was before the war started.
Vice President Vance flew to Islamabad on April 12 to negotiate a permanent deal. The talks lasted 21 hours and, despite the vice president’s high-school debate champ energy, produced nothing. Vance told reporters that Iran had “chosen not to accept our terms” and flew home. Trump, six days removed from “total and complete victory,” responded by announcing a full naval blockade of Iran.
On April 19, he threatened to “knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran” if the talks failed, then announced that the US Navy had fired on and seized the Iranian-flagged cargo ship Touska in the Gulf of Oman. U.S. Marines rappelled from helicopters onto the deck after a destroyer disabled it with gunfire, with Trump excitedly posting that they were “seeing what’s on board!” Iran called it piracy and vowed retaliation. The next day, Iran pulled out of a planned second round of talks in Islamabad, and two days after that, Iran seized two container ships in the Strait of Hormuz and attacked a third. On April 21, Trump extended the ceasefire, while keeping the blockade fully in place. Iran has called the blockade an act of war and said it won’t negotiate until it is lifted.
Despite the fragile ceasefire, I’m writing about this war in the present tense, and that’s intentional. If there’s anything we’ve learned from watching Trump since he first came to power, it’s that he says one thing, does another, lies constantly, backs out, and changes his mind on a daily basis. A ceasefire extension, a naval blockade, and dueling ship seizures in the same week say a lot about just how “over” this war really is—because it feels like we’ve seen this movie before. We all watched President Bush declare “mission accomplished” on May 1, 2003, 43 days after we invaded Iraq. In January of 2004, my infantry brigade deployed to Kirkuk to fight the growing insurgency. Over 4,300 Americans died after that banner came down.
In the lead-up to the Iraq War, President Bush stood at a podium and tried to deliver a simple proverb: “Fool me once, shame on—shame on you…” He paused, lost the thread, and landed on “fool me, you can’t get fooled again.” We all laughed and laughed and then spent a decade watching caskets come home. Some of those caskets had my friends in them.
Maybe the ceasefire holds. Maybe the talks resume, and something real comes out of them. I genuinely hope so. But we’ve elected Donald Trump twice, believed his promises twice, and now we’re watching another victory banner come down over another unfinished war in the Middle East. We should know better by now, but despite whatever W was trying to say, history suggests you absolutely can get fooled again.
***
As this piece was going to press, a third aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush, arrived in the Middle East, joining the USS Gerald R. Ford and the USS Abraham Lincoln—the same ship President George W. Bush stood on when he declared mission accomplished in Iraq… apparently, history has a sense of humor. Meanwhile, US forces seized a second tanker in the Indian Ocean, and Trump ordered the Navy to "shoot and kill" Iranian boats laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz and said there is "no time frame" on ending the war.
Nick Allison is a writer and editor based in Austin, Texas. His work has appeared in Slate, HuffPost, The Fulcrum, The Chaos Section, and elsewhere. Find him on Bluesky @nickallison80.bsky.socialEditor's Note: This story was updated on 4/24 to reflect several timely developments.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More