Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Politicians play a dangerous game when they call for violence

Opinion

Rep. Paul Gosar

Rep. Paul Gosar shared an anime-style video depicted violence against a fellow member of Congress.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Carlos De Castro Pretelt is a retired Army officer and supporter of Veterans for Political Innovation.

"Their beliefs are an existential threat to America!"

In the festering, Lord of the Flies spring of gushing anxiety we refer to as “politics,” that offensive, trash-ass sentence has become the de facto approach to the disagreements of our era. As a very recently retired member of the military, with 22 years of undiluted indoctrination under my belt, I take these types of sentences, and the emotions they are meant to elicit, seriously.

During the travails of military service, I’ve been trained and qualified in the dispassionate application of violence. Who would like for you to believe there is any respite or righteousness in its application is not intimately familiar with the long-term effects of it. Much like in war, there are seldom any clear winners and losers. Everyone loses something. Thus, when I see or hear politicians make statements that inherently endorse or suggest hurting other Americans, it gives me great cause for concern.


This propensity to advocate for violence in politics is something that has been growing over the last few years. As the rate of polarization continues to increase – that is, the rate at which you believe your neighbor’s beliefs are an actual threat to your existence – the more likely you are to see others as less than human. Add to this the caustic and incendiary verbiage utilized by media outlets to keep your eyes and ears rapt in a near-constant state of flight or fight and you end up with an open Lemarchand’s Box, popularized by the Hellraiser movies. Basically, it invites a version of reality that nobody but the most gluttonous masochists enjoy. Which is sorta where we find ourselves. Sigh.

This is how we end up with representatives habitually making statements about how plainly stupid other members of Congress are and how they will make them pay, on your behalf, by inflicting violence upon them. Which is how you end up with a dentist who runs for political office and then makes a video of himself decapitating other members of Congress. Granted, in anime style. But also, what?

There are two things driving this madness. The first part is that this is all operatic. These individuals know violence will not help them achieve their goal, but they just want you to please look at them. Like a really, really old child vying for attention, it’s as if they never understood positive vs negative attention. The second part is about making a statement. Due to polarization, politicians must fend off challengers within their own party who are eager to paint them as soft on existential threats!

The good news is that we are not lost and we didn’t get to this wacky hellscape by mistake. We got here by design. You see, current politics are structured in a way that forces you to choose a side and swear loyalty to it, repeatedly. Like a really intense, super needy acquaintance. For example, name any contentious issue right now and you will see that the two parties have drawn imaginary lines and crafted talking points with specific words that you can use to proclaim your brand alignment to the world. This isolates you from competing views, which may provide a different approach to the issue, and it relegates your persona to future party edicts. The more brand allegiance the party has, the less uncertainty they can expect from you in the future. (Uncertainty referring to your ability to analyze extraneous ideas and decide if another party better represents your values.)

We do not have to continue playing this tired, silly game. We can break up the two-party duopoly by supercharging our voting processes. As a team, this is absolutely achievable. There are a number of ballot initiatives in Missouri, Wisconsin and Nevada that are meant to introduce open primaries and ranked-choice voting in our elections. This change would have a significant, if not historical, impact in the political environment, best explained by the following video, which uses cute cartoons and animals.

How Industry Competition Theory Can Help Fix U.S. Politicswww.youtube.com

As you find yourself crawling around the internet, numbing your awareness with torrents of information, keep in mind that none of these politicians would actually do the things they irresponsibly advocate for. It is just an easy, lazy way to get your attention. To get you riled up so you keep clicking on their videos. The parties want you to refresh your brand loyalty and get you angry at other Americans by feeding you talking points and making very complex problems seem misleadingly easy. Because, if these problems are easy to fix, then that means they are letting this happen. Their beliefs are an existential threat to America! Patriots must take action!


Read More

 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House, Washington, DC
A large white building with a fountain in front of it

We Can and Should Reform the President’s Pardon Power

On August 21, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report entitled “Pardons, Inc.: How Trump and His Clemency-for-Cash Racket Let White-Collar Criminals and International Drug Dealers Walk Free and Dodge Billions in Restitution Owed to Their Victims.” As the title suggests, the report documents the president’s startling abuse of his constitutional power to grant pardons and reprieves.

If that problem were limited to Trump, we might look to the ballot box to remedy it. But it is not.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

Russell Vought, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in July.

Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images

The Trump Administration’s Plan for Protecting Consumers? Politely Ask Companies to Behave.

In mid-July testimony before Congress, Russell Vought boasted that, as the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he’d refashioned the agency’s approach to pursuing banks and other financial companies accused of exploiting Americans — the role Congress had created for the agency after the 2008 economic crash.

Vought had spent the first 18 months of the new Trump administration trying to dismantle the bureau, much as he and other appointees had done with the U.S. Agency for International Development. At CFPB, he’d ordered mass layoffs, tried to choke off the bureau’s funding and ended the lease on its headquarters, attempting to make good on his vow to put civil servants “in trauma.” But federal courts blocked Vought’s efforts to close the CFPB, with a judge at one point saying the administration had acted with “complete disregard” for Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less