Congressional pages carry electoral votes into a joint session of Congress in January 2017.
Think you know all there is to know about the Electoral College? Test your smarts with this quiz.
This quiz is powered by CredSpark.
This recent U.S. election cycle has deeply affected many — not just in the United States, but globally. Some are excited, others cautiously optimistic, while many are in pain. Pain often brings fear, anger, confusion, trauma and intense emotions, which can dysregulate our nervous systems. When this happens, we default to fight, flight or freeze responses, making it difficult to access our reasoning brain or approach others with an open heart.
In our current world situation, with closed hearts, we intentionally or unintentionally perceive differences as threats. Unfortunately, family members and those closest to us often become the easiest targets for our fear, frustration and hopelessness. Despite our best intentions — like promising ourselves we won’t discuss politics with Uncle Charlie or Cousin Henk — we sometimes find ourselves in familiar, heated arguments. In the end, these exchanges rarely accomplish anything. What could have been a moment of respite from a hard world leaves us more polarized, cynical and, perhaps, with a bad case of indigestion.
Here’s what I’ve come to understand: As long as our need to be right outweighs our desire for genuine reconciliation and collaboration, these patterns will persist. Real change begins when we stop impatiently, arrogantly or violently imposing our views on others and recognize that, regardless of political beliefs, race, gender, gender-choice, religion or economic status, we are all in this together. Only then can we prevent the erosion of our highest values as human beings.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
To avoid being trapped in my own reactive mind, I turn to practices that help me reconnect with my heart. I remind myself:
This holiday season, my intention is to offer nurturing and protection, not opinions or condemnation. I also rely on my “Tips for the Holidays,” which I’ve shared every year since 2016. These tips help maintain self-care while fostering meaningful relationships:
These are just a few ideas. Do you have others? I’d love to hear them.
We are navigating a time of profound transition that offers both challenges and opportunities for growth. While policy and social change are essential, the real work of building a respectful, civil society often starts at the kitchen table, in the company of diverse communities.
Wishing you peace, inner strength and compassion this holiday season — both for yourself and others.
Weston is the founder of the Weston Network, which provides trainings, consulting and coaching.
Book bans are skyrocketing in America, finds a new report from PEN America, a non-profit organization that champions free expression in writing. During the 2023-24 school year, over 10,000 books were banned across the country, more than double the number that were banned the prior year.
Those in favor of bans argue that books depicting LGBTQ+ characters, gender diversity, sexuality, and racism are unsuitable for children. Working together, conservative pressure groups and politicians have successfully banned a historic number of books across the nation. The number is expected to increase in 2025.
In July alone, Utah enacted a bill to create a “no read list” across the state, while Florida enacted a sweeping bill giving parents the power to veto books in public schools and libraries. More recently, a large county school board in Tennessee voted to ban six books from public libraries, including "Beloved" by Toni Morrison.
Book bans may have mushroomed in the Trump era of reactionary politics, but they have a well-established history in America. Battles over what books can be read, and by whom, dating back to the ban on "Uncle Tom’s Cabin" by abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1852, reflect larger political battles over America’s moral and cultural values.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Women have been powerful drivers of book controversies. One woman in particular, Norma Gabler, re-defined the current strategy and logic behind modern book bans. Called “education’s public enemy number one,” by critics in 1980, Gabler led the crusade against the so-called secular trend in school textbooks throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Even though Norma and her husband Mel worked together, Norma was the public face of their efforts for decades.
It all began in 1961 in Longview, Texas, when Gabler’s son presented his school textbook and pointed out that the words “one nation under God” were missing from the Gettysburg Address.
“Well, I’m Irish, and that got my Irish up,” Gabler reported in a 1982 article.
Angered by what she considered a factual and moral omission, Gabler, a devout Baptist, drove nearly five hours to Austin, the state capital, to complain to the State Board of Education.
After her trip to Austin, Gabler’s activism snowballed. She began regularly raising objections at the Texas textbook committee hearings, which advised the state’s Board of Education on which textbooks to adopt. It wasn’t until 1974, over a decade after she began, that she saw the fruits of her labor. That year, science textbooks contained a notice stating that evolution was a theory, not a fact. Her persistence, and ability to rally other Christian women to complain at committee hearings, had finally started to pay off.
At the same time as Gabler, other American women—from the left and the right—led disputes over educational material. In West Virginia, mother and school board member Alice Moore protested textbooks she considered anti-American, anti-God, and anti-white. Over the course of a year, thousands of other parents and organizations joined Moore’s protests, which eventually turned violent. Elsewhere, second-wave feminists argued that schools needed to rid curricula of gender stereotypes, and that women’s accomplishments ought to be more prominently cited in history books.
Norma and Mel Gabler went on to sway which books Texas adopted for the public-school curriculum. At the time, Texas was the largest textbook buyer in the nation and books for the entire state were selected centrally by the State Board of Education. As such, publishers relied on the Gablers’ evaluation of textbooks for sales. Because the Texas market was so big, other states also adopted their approved textbooks, meaning Texas—and the Gablers—often decided the curriculum for other states too.
The material Norma Gabler opposed included what she deemed “gutter language,” “secular humanism,” evolution, women’s liberation, and socialism. She advocated for the free market and Christianity. At the same time, other right-wing Christian women across the nation also became politically mobilized. They sought to curb the erosion of so-called Christian values from different areas of American culture, including education, television and movies, and books.
In California, Beverly LaHaye launched an organization to combat feminism, Phyllis Schlafly campaigned to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, Anita Bryant went to war against gay rights, and Dr. Mildred Jefferson rallied against abortion. These women, and others, operated independently, yet labored toward a common goal: to protect conservative Christian values, which they felt were under attack.
Even though she rose to the forefront of America’s educational politics, Gabler endorsed traditional gender roles and wanted to see this reflected in school textbooks. She consistently referred to herself as “just a housewife and mother” without a college degree. Gabler framed book censorship as a matter of “parental rights.” Once, during a heated face-off with a State Board of Education member, Norma asserted: “My sons belong to us; they do not belong to you and the state – yet.” Similarly, giving a public talk to parents, she passionately stated: “If you don’t fight, nobody else will!”
Hasis on being an everyday concerned mother was a political strategy that aided her success. Precisely because she was described as “plain folk” from small-town Texas, Gabler’s activism was difficult to counter. Additionally, by staking her politics on her identity as a mother, she and other right-wing activists such as Schlafly and LaHaye, appealed to other Christian women, drawing them into the political fray.
In 1973, the Gablers founded Educational Research Analysts, a non-profit organization. They hired six staff members who helped them review textbooks and disseminate regular newsletters with their findings to a mailing list of over 10,000 people. That year also marked a turning point as the Gablers achieved a broader, more national influence, leading seminars on textbook evaluation for conservative groups across the U.S. During the 1970s and 1980s, Gabler lectured before various audiences about textbook monitoring, from women’s organizations to government bodies. She appeared on national television, including on CBS' "60 Minutes," and radio shows. In 1985, the Gablers published a book called "What Are they Teaching Our Children?," which detailed the ruinous effects of secular textbooks.
Today, America’s book bans have changed slightly. As literature has expanded to include more stories about gender and racial diversity, conservative women have also adapted their political targets. Whereas Gabler targeted school textbooks, pressure groups and politicians currently focus on literature such as "Gender Queer" by Maia Kobabe, the most challenged book of last year.
Norma Gabler’s objections spanned various topics, and often centered on factual inaccuracies, not just moral debates. Today, bans center entirely on upholding conservative Christian values. Even still, the topics under attack reflect historical antecedents. Books featuring LGTBQ+ relationships are the most heavily targeted, recalling Bryant’s virulent attack on gay rights in 1977.
And whereas Gabler waged ideological battle with the state’s public education system, today’s battles have expanded to include public libraries as well.
Despite these differences, much of the same rhetoric persists. As Gabler argued 60 years ago, today’s book banners continue to emphasize that parents hold the right to decide what their children read and learn about. This logic finds purchase during periods of marked social and cultural change. Just like the early 1970s, today’s politics are characterized by an intense moral backlash, and parents—more specifically mothers—strive to protect the established moral order.
Gabler’s legacy lives on in Florida’s House Bill 1069, which mentions “parents’ rights” six times. And Donald Trump’s campaign promise to abolish the Department of Education rests on the reasoning that parents—not the federal government—should govern all aspects of children’s education.
Moms for Liberty, which claims to have 130,000 members in chapters across 48 states, is a driving force behind recent book bans in America. Led by Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich, the group stresses parents’ right to choose what their children read, just like Norma Gabler did decades ago. And just like Gabler, Justice and Descovich present themselves as everyday “moms on a mission.”
They have been highly effective. The recent Moms for Liberty annual conference, headlined by Donald Trump, focused on education, alongside gender identity. As Gabler once exhorted her audience of conservative women: “Let’s show them that we know how to win!”
As U.S. politics grow ever more contentious and the conservative backlash mounts, it is prudent to remember that the battle over books is nothing new. And that sometimes the most unsuspecting actors wield tremendous political power.
Gaddini is a visiting researcher in Stanford University's History Department and an associate professor of sociology at University College London. She is a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
This aarticle was first published in Time.
A war crimes prosecutor examines the consequences of a Russian missile attack in central Odesa, Ukraine, on Nov. 25.
Ukraine is in the crosshairs of politics, domestically and globally. What is the status of this war, and what does the future hold for the Ukrainian people?
On Nov. 18, the Network for Responsible Public Policy hosted a virtual discussion to answer these questions and many more about the current situation on the ground, U.S. political sentiments and challenges, Russia’s threats to the region, its cozy relationship with some American leaders and more.
The speakers addressed the current situation, options and future for Ukraine.
The speakers were:
Gideon Rose, the moderator, is the Mary and David Boies Distinguished Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. He was previously editor of Foreign Affairs from 2010 to 2021. He served as associate director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the staff of the National Security Council in 1994 and 1995.
Enjoy this insightful and important discussion and analysis of the war in Ukraine in which the speakers discussed the current situation (attitudes, strengths and weakness) in both Ukraine and Russia on the ground and politically, as well as scenarios that may be initiated by the Trump administration.
President-elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Kid Rock watch a UFC event at Madison Square Garden on Nov. 16.
There is an understandable urge among many Americans to cast aside America's essential principles in a frenetic effort to oppose Donald Trump. And there's a logic to this approach: He does it, so why shouldn't we?
Yet doing so would be a big mistake.
For starters, it often backfires. Take the essential principle of respecting the rule of law. Overreaching anti-Trump impeachment efforts, special counsel investigations and criminal cases all boomeranged into Republican rallying cries and helped Trump retake the presidency.
It’s not always true in politics that the harder you fight the more successful you will be. Exercising judgment matters, too.
A far better approach is to double down on the essential principles of American democracy. They work. In fact, America's founders specifically engineered them to be effective tools against the threat of politicians with autocratic impulses.
Among these essential principles: the right to free speech. History reveals that free speech is vital to human freedom. Tyrants don’t just concentrate power; they eliminate dissent and monopolize ideas. Violence within and between nations increases when governments stifle communication. And restricting the marketplace of ideas decreases innovations that promote human flourishing.
All too often in the Trump era, however, Americans have sought to suppress speech they didn't like. Hostility to divergent views has infected many American institutions, from corporations and nonprofits to the media and government agencies. The tactics can get extreme: attacking speakers on social media; running people from their jobs; denying tenure to professors; shouting down speakers with the wrong views; threatening administrators with the wrong rules; boycotting companies affiliated with the wrong people.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
More and more Americans are casting aside age-old principles valuing free speech in favor of short-sighted, knee-jerk prohibitions on speakers they don’t like.
This is wrong. The way to counteract speech you don’t like is to explain why it’s wrong. Silencing speech and canceling speakers is deeply counterproductive for three reasons.
First, the censors don’t have more wisdom than the censored. They often have less. Censorship can just as easily muzzle important truths as it can silence subversive lies. History is filled with minority views that eventually became gospel (every person should be equal under the law) and popular ideas that eventually became abominations (certain races are inferior to others).
Second, accuracy matters. Silencing speech is often motivated by the desire to preserve cherished narratives that are empirically incorrect. Bad ideas love nothing more than a marketplace hostile to new ones. This is especially dangerous in a representative democracy like America, where the views of constituents inform and even dictate the official acts of their elected representatives.
Speaking accurately should be encouraged, even if it upsets people. This doesn’t mean speakers should over-emphasize hard truths and controversial ideas. Nor should speakers exaggerate them, fail to show decency when expressing them or assert them at the wrong time, in the wrong place or in the wrong manner. But if speakers navigate all that and merely state objective facts, pose empirically valid questions or offer reasoned conclusions then they should come under no scorn. There needs to be space in the public square for people to speak accurately. Even if it sometimes hurts to hear.
Finally, silencing speech is a slippery slope. What starts at the university can eventually go mainstream. And what goes mainstream can eventually infect the highest echelons of government. Once this happens, a straight line to tyranny emerges. President Harry Truman put it plainly in 1950: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
Free speech is indeed essential to a functioning society. We must fight to preserve it by respecting and promoting it ourselves. Even when the speaker says things we don't want to hear. And even, indeed especially, when Donald Trump is president.
Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.”
