Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Our poisonous age of absolutism

Opinion

Abortion rights and anti-abortion protestors at the Supreme Court

An anti-abortion protestor confronts abortion rights activists during dueling rallies in front of the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Paterno, a former quarterbacks coach for Penn State University, ran for lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania in 2014 and consults on a variety of issues.

To a nation already drunk on the partisan pursuit of absolutist politics, it appears likely that the Supreme Court is about to uncork a 1973 vintage from Grapes of Wrath Vineyards called “Renverser Roe v. Wade.” The landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was a controversial ruling then; it has remained so. Overturning it will unleash a new round of contentious politics.

This column is not about the legal merits of either side, but how this case adds fuel to the fire in our current age of 50.1 percent Absolutism.

A decision to overturn Roe v. Wade will set off a nationwide scramble to win elections and grab the reins of power at the state and federal levels. And for the most vocal and visible sides of the issue there can be no compromise. But these days that seems to be the case for every issue.


Absolutism is about raw power and is the plague of our current politics. Sides dig in with non-negotiable answers to every issue. Compromise and collaboration are never acceptable.

It is a philosophy that means that once one side hits 50.1 percent they use that majority to try ramming home everything they want. They use it to look the other way on ethics violations on their side, and to advance their agenda without input from anyone else.

For the 49.9 percent in the minority, this new age means obstruction, refusal to cooperate in the hopes that things don’t go well and the majority will be transferred to their party.

For four years with a GOP president we heard all about infrastructure. And what happened when a Democrat got into the White House? Many of the GOP infrastructure hawks suddenly turned to “No” votes. Now many of them are now running around their districts taking credit for new infrastructure projects coming home. But that’s the nature of where we are.

To gain and then ensure a hold on power some will do anything. But there are two basic things that must be protected: the legal system and our election process.

The justice system is best when we remember that our system is founded so that innocent people are not wrongly jailed. And our election system is best when we make voting as accessible as possible for everyone. Retreating on those rights has become a cause because people who did not like the election results continually lie about nonexistent, large-scale fraud.

The right to vote and the right to due process are two sacred foundations of our nation’s governance. But absolutism with a splash of ascendant authoritarian impulses is a cocktail that threatens to poison us all.

The presidential veto and the Supreme Court remain checks in our unique system. Presidents must get elected and then face the people four years later, but Supreme Court justices armed with lifetime appointments remain in power until the hour of their choosing, or until they die. It is easy to see why some of them may attain an arrogance bordering on a god complex.

Congressional power, like the presidency, is ever-changing. So the question for a party with slim margins in Congress is how much party discipline leaders can command. In an evenly divided Senate like we have now, one or two senators can have the keys to an outsized amount of power.

For those who understand that governing is done through ever-evolving coalitions of convenience and consensus, these are bitter days.

The most mature leadership requires compromise, but for everyone willing to work with others, the party extremes are waiting with a primary challenger and an army of social media mobsters to inflame emotions against them.

Absolutism disguised as “integrity” or “consistency” resolves nothing and leads to constant cycles of conflict for those drawing their power from enduring strife. Hard-core extremists engage in politics is an all-or-nothing, zero-sum game.

And conflict sells. So the absolutists are addicted to the social media attention that is then rewarded by partisan news outlets. Those outlets’ viewers drink nightly from the unholy chalice of inflexible extremist ideology.

Aside from ideology, absolutism has even created its own set of “facts.”

I know it is not popular to say this but it must be said: We are not entitled to our own “truths” but rather we must accept the truth. Absolute certainty in someone’s own “truths” births a false worldview that creates the explosive emotions that lead to events like Charlottesville in 2017 or to the riot of Jan. 6, 2021.

As a long, hot summer approaches, the hand-to-hand combat in every state that may be unleashed by overturning Roe v. Wade is another fuse. That fuse is fertile ground for those who draw power from division, for those who drive anger.

These are people who wish to call into question every institution we have in this country, from the government, our elections and our judicial system to our education system and our media.

They do this to create the conditions where all trust is gone. And when trust is gone there is no hope in sitting across the table as sisters and brothers to forge the types of compromises that created our founding documents, the kinds of compromises that can bind us together again.

To reject the default position of distrust, to reject the sweet siren call of constant conflict; that is the challenge of our time. And it is only about to get even harder.


Read More

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less