Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Grand Canyon gap in America today

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

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less