Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

We’re all frustrated by political incivility – but unsure how to fix it

Ninety percent is close to statistical unanimity, and 90 percent of Americans don't agree on much. But that's the share of the electorate expressing frustration with the "uncivil and rude behavior of politicians," a new poll finds. Results show four out of five voters hold special interests, social media and President Trump responsible.

The same survey, however, finds a profound contradiction about what should be done to boost civility and good manners in public life.


"Compromise and common ground should be the goal," 80 percent of Republicans, 87 percent of independents and 90 percent of Democrats told pollsters from the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service.

And then 85 percent of Republicans, 69 percent of independents and 78 percent of Democrats declared themselves tired of their political leaders compromising their values and urging them to stand up to the other.

Republican pollster Ed Goeas of The Tarrance Group and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners conducted the research. It's similar to the bipartisan polling they've been conducting for two decades.

"Too often, the expedient and confidence-building solution in campaigns and in policy debates is harshly attacking political opponents. This will not change until voters and political leaders demand better," Goeas wrote. "When the reward for attacking opponents is eliminated, politicians will change their tactics. Successful politicians quickly adapt to the tactics that give them the greatest opportunities for success."

Lake noted that "the feeling that politicians are more concerned with helping special interests than their constituents also transcends partisanship," and so "candidates who are able to attain an authentic identity — and achieve separation from their opponents — on this issue stand to reap significant political rewards."


Read More

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less