Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Grand Canyon gap in America today

Opinion

Grand Canyon gap in America today
Getty Images

Anderson edited Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

American political observers have a tendency to divide American politicians into progressives and conservatives, but they are more likely to divide American citizens into progressives, moderates and conservatives. This is so, presumably, because the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate are themselves pretty evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. And although there are factions within each party, there is still a tendency to leave the moderate category out of the analysis.


Polarization in Washington, therefore, is relatively easy to explain. We have two political parties that are at each other's throats. To the extent that there are factions, the factions tend to be between progressives and extreme progressives and conservatives and extreme conservatives. The Freedom Caucus in the House, for example, is a group of extreme or ultra conservatives. The rest of the House is not made up of many, if any moderates. On the Democratic Side, the Squad led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, makes up the ultra-progressives, which for some of them means democratic socialists.

In the country, on the other hand, go to Gallup or Pew and you will find a division which is roughly 30% liberal, 30% conservative and 40% either moderate or independent. Not all independents are moderate, but most of the citizens who do not identify with the two major parties are, broadly speaking, sympathetic to moderate or centrist solutions to policy debates. These citizens do not see politics or life in terms of either/or choices; they are more nuanced in their thinking, they favor compromise over conflict, and cooperation over confrontation.

The gap in our country between highly polarized and toxic Washington and a country with three major perspectives is in the Grand Canyon category. The mainstream media preserves the Grand Canyon gap by heightening the contrast between the Democrats and Republicans in Washington and, basically, ignoring the presence of 40% of the citizenry who do not identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans.

Stanford University's Morris Fiorina is the leading American scholar to have argued for decades that the Culture War is a myth. Emory's Alan Abramowitz is one of the leading political scientists to reject Fiorina's thesis and defend the thesis that America is plagued by polarization.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between the Fiorina and Abramowitz points of view. What seems undeniable is that there are tens of millions of Americans, maybe as many as one hundred million, who do not feel comfortable reflecting on our country in terms of a redcoat versus bluecoat mentality. Whether they are centrists, moderates, independents, or even ultra-conservatives or ultra-progressives, they do not pitch their tents with Speaker McCarthy or Senator Schumer. Many of these citizens are not very engaged in politics at all. Indeed, these citizens may have checked out of politics altogether; they may not even vote.

The race for president in both parties needs to address the Grand Canyon gap in our society. One way to close the gap is to have more proposals about policies that would close the gap. Certainly there needs to be discussion about policies that would empower independents, moderates and centrists, including open primaries, ranked-choice voting, and nonpartisan redistricting.

The truth is that campaigns like opinion pages in the print media have limited resources. Although we do need gap closing policies, we actually need fewer arguments about standard public policy issues, whether the issue is guns, climate change, energy, manufacturing, health care, transportation infrastructure, child-care, or the Ukraine-Russia war.

There are related problems to be discussed, including whether Mr. Trump should be disqualified from running for office by section 3 of the 14th Amendment and whether Mr. Biden is too old to be running for office for a second term. These are very important issues, and we should hear from all candidates for office, including Trump and Biden, on these issues.

As important as public policies are, the standard public policies actually get too much attention in our elections. The candidates, moreover, take positions that tend to fit in a progressive or conservative box, and this continues to alienate the potential voters who do not identify as Democrats or Republicans. The time is now to address the Grand Canyon gap in America and decrease attention to standard public policy in election campaigns. Voters want to hear more about closing the Grand Canyon gap, structural changes in the electoral process, what qualities and character traits we expect in our president, and narratives the candidates have about America's past and how it is connected to our present and the future.


Read More

Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses

This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You

The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.

A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.

Keep ReadingShow less