Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Politicians play a dangerous game when they call for violence

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less