Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Recently at the invitation of a friend I went to dinner at a rabbi’s house to start Shabbat, the Jewish observance every week beginning at sunset on Friday evening and ending after dark on Saturday.
I am Jewish by birth but have not been to a temple for many years. I am not a religious Jew. While I have close ties to my heritage, I think of myself more as a humanist than a Jew.
I very much enjoyed the dinner at the rabbi’s house and reflected later on a statement he made in response to my comment about not being a religious Jew. He spoke of a concept within Judaism of no labels, and that labels are made for suits and should not be used to define us as Jews. He was referring to the concept that oftentimes Jews judge each other as to whether they are Reform, Conservative or Orthodox Jews, or may judge others on how often they go to synagogue as a measurement of whether they are “real” Jews. He went on to explain that regardless of who we are and the extent of our Jewish observance, and that while on the surface we might look or be very different from each other, underneath we’re all Jews and all the same.
I was struck by his comment because a similar concept of no labels, but applied in a very different fashion, is the foundation of a principle that drove me to devote my time and energies to unite Americans as a people. I do this as the chairman of the board and cofounder of The Bridge Alliance, a coalition of organizations with over 100 members working together to strengthen our democracy through political reforms and also to heal the divides that separate us as a society.
My life changed about 11 years ago when I heard the term no labels but used not in terms of religion but in a secular manner. I became very involved with an organization called No Labels, a bi-partisan organization that at the time demanded that American leaders and citizens alike declare their freedom from the anger and divisiveness that are ruining our politics and most importantly our country. They believe we must recommit to the fundamental beliefs that have historically united Americans and provide a common understanding of who we are and where we hope to go and to do so we must remove the political label we attached to each other.
And so I pondered how the Jewish perspective on no labels might apply, if at all, with the concept of no labels in terms of the America we live in.
How can Jews, Christians, Muslims and all religions, as well as Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and Whites honor and cherish their heritage and espouse the principles that bind them together while at the same time honoring and respecting the strong beliefs of others? Do terms like Chosen People used by Jews, or Black Power used by African Americans conflict with the concept of pluralism in America? I think not.
I believe that for our nation to fulfill its motto of E Pluribus Unum: Out of many, we are one, we must embrace our diversity — meaning diversity with regard to race/ethnicity, sex/gender, social identity, religion, ideology and age.
And I believe we can do so while at the same time honoring our own heritage. The two are not mutually exclusive and the path is not easy.
The mere discussion of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion that should unite us instead more often divides us into our respective clans as tribalism grows in America. While I believe that our nation will be stronger if diversity becomes our operating system, and I believe that legislation can play some useful role, ultimately it is our hearts and minds that must lead us to the challenges that the diverse population of America presents to us.
How wonderful would it be if the cultural tradition of Shabbat, that I experienced recently, could be shared with others, and they shared their traditions with me. Sharing our respective traditions through storytelling, music, song, dance can help bridge the divide that separates us, and will start the healing process as we start to build connections and friendships with those different from us.
I researched a Jewish prayer mentioned at dinner, Shema Yisrael, a term that I had not heard for many years. Shema Yisrael prayer expresses belief in the singularity of God. Professor of classical rabbinic literature Reuven Kimelmansaid the Shema summons Jews to feel, "an all-consuming love of God."
"It's a love that is unreserved, all-demanding, at all times, in all places and in all circumstances," he said. "Nothing is excluded. Thoughts are to be focused, words are to be spoken, and deeds are to be done."
My dream is to extend Shema Yisrael to all of us. Let us remove all the labels between all of us and the deeds that are done by We the People. Only then will we be able to explore completely and freely, and who knows, we might embrace and even come to observe new traditions that become blended into our own values and traditions.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration's tariff strategy, and amid a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf threatening Iran.
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t
I recently watched "A Face in the Crowd" for the umpteenth time.
I had a better reason than procrastination to rewatch Elia Kazan’s brilliant 1957 film exploring populism in the television age. It was homework. I was asked to discuss it with Turner Classic Movies host Ben Mankiewicz at the just-concluded TCM Film Festival in Los Angeles. As a pundit and an author, I do a lot of public speaking. But I don’t really do a lot of cool public speaking, so this was a treat.
With that not-very-humble brag out of the way, I had a depressing realization watching it this time.
"A Face in the Crowd" tells the story of a charming drifter with a dark side named Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, played brilliantly by Andy Griffith. A singer with the gift of the gab, Rhodes takes off on radio but quickly segues to the brand-new medium of television. He becomes a national sensation — and political kingmaker — by forming a deep connection with the masses, particularly among the rural and working classes. His core audience is made up of people with grievances. “Everybody that’s got to jump when somebody else blows the whistle,” as Rhodes puts it.
The film’s climax (spoiler alert) comes when Rhodes’ manager and spurned lover, Marcia, turns on the microphone while the credits rolled at the end of “Cracker Barrel,” his national TV show. Rhodes tells his entourage what he really thinks of the “morons” in his audience. “Shucks, I can take chicken fertilizer and sell it to them for caviar. I can make them eat dog food, and they’ll think it’s steak. … Good night, you stupid idiots.”
It was a canonical “hot mic” moment in American cinema. But the idea that if people could glimpse the “real person” behind the popular facade, they’d turn on them is a very old theme in literature — think Pierre Choderlos de Laclos’ "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" (1782) or Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s "The School for Scandal" (1777), in which diaries and letters do the work of microphones.
Kazan and screenwriter Budd Schulberg were very worried about the ability of demagogues to whip up populist fervor and manipulate the masses through the power of TV, in part because everyone had already seen it happen with radio and film, by Father Coughlin in America and Hitler in Germany. But as dark as their vision was, they still clung to the idea that if the demagogue was exposed, the people would instantly turn on their leader in an “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment for the mass media age.
And that’s the source of my depressing realization. I think they were wrong. It turns out that once that organic connection is made, even a shocking revelation of the truth won’t necessarily break the spell.
In 2016, a lot of writers revisited "A Face in the Crowd" to understand the Trump phenomenon. After all, here was a guy who used a TV show — "The Apprentice" — and social media to build a massive following, going over the heads of the “establishment.” Trump’s own hot mic moment with "Access Hollywood," in which he boasted of his sexual predations, proved insufficient to undo him. That was hardly the only such moment for him. We’ve heard Trump bully the Georgia secretary of state to “find 11,780 votes.” He told Bob Woodward he deliberately “played down” COVID-19. After leaving office, he was recorded telling aides he shouldn’t be sharing classified documents with them — then doing it anyway. And so on.
Trump’s famous claim that he could “shoot somebody” on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters may have been hyperbole. But it’s not crazy to think he wouldn’t lose as many voters as he should.
In the film, Lonesome Rhodes implodes when Americans encounter his off-air persona. The key to Trump’s success is that he ran as his off-air persona. Why people love that persona is a complicated question. Among the many complementary explanations is that he comes across as authentic, and some people value authenticity more than they value good character, honesty, or competence.
This is not just a problem for Republicans. Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner once had a Nazi tattoo and has said things about women as distasteful as Trump’s “grab them by (the genitals)” comments, and the Democratic establishment is rallying around him because he’s authentic — and because Democrats want to win that race.
Many prominent MAGA loyalists are turning on Trump these days. They claim — wrongly in my opinion — that he’s changed and that the Iran war is a betrayal of their cause. But if you look at the polls, voters who describe themselves as “MAGA” still overwhelmingly support Trump. In short, he still has the Fifth Avenue voters on his side.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.