Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ousting of Speaker McCarthy helps prove country not polarized

Ousting of Speaker McCarthy helps prove country not polarized
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.

The ousting of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker, a topic that will be discussed for years to come by scholars, the media, politicians, and political consultants shows that a very small number of members of Congress in the majority party can foist their chamber and the country into a major crisis if they force a potential Speaker to change the rules about voting a Speaker out of office and then implement that change. Among Republicans, 202 voted not to oust McCarthy and eight voted to oust him. The Democrats stayed out of the internal fight within the Republican party. They all voted to oust McCarthy.


The removal of McCarthy from his post definitely does not show that the people of the United States are polarized. It points to the opposite conclusion. There is a stark contrast between the near 50/50 split in the Senate and the House, where there is extreme polarization, rancor, and manipulation and the country, where 40% to 44% of Americans over the last year have answered the monthly Gallup survey in almost every month by saying that they do not identify with either major party, even though the majority of them lean toward one party.

Leaning toward a party is not identifying with it. It is critical not to underestimate how significant is the fact that about 40 out of 100 Americans refuse to say that they are either Democrats or Republicans. This is like saying, "I am not a Christian" if you were raised as a Christian or saying, "I am not a man" if you have the biological features of a man but you feel like a woman or nonbinary. Political scientists can twist the facts as much as they like, but the bottom line is that a person who refuses to be associated with either political party is telling you something of paramount importance.

It is certainly true that there are extremists in our country, maybe ten percent in each party, who are fiercely opposed to the other party. Moreover, about 40 percent of the country, in addition to the 20 percent who are extremists, is polarized. But with 40 percent not even associating themselves with either party, we don't have any basis to say that the country is polarized.

The picture of the U.S. House of Representatives and the picture of the approximately 220 million adults who could vote if they were registered, is not a snapshot of the larger canvas of the whole country. The pictures are not even similar. The picture of the U.S. House of Representatives is one of total dysfunction. The picture of the country has about 40% of the people essentially sitting out a conflict between the other 60%, and only about one-third of those fighting are extremely angry and unhinged; and less than 1% of that one-third have been violent.

There can be no doubt that American democracy is under threat as more than a few notable scholars have pointed out in recent days, including Daniel Ziblatt, Professor of Government at Harvard University and co-author with Steven Levitsky of the landmark book, How Democracies Die. Yet it is of the first importance to appreciate that it is the nation's capital that is threatening the republic right now and not the vast majority of citizens of the United States. The nation's capital itself has become polarized and dysfunctional for many reasons, including gerrymandering; the outsized role of money in politics; the prevention of independents from having an opportunity to elect more moderate candidates as a result of living in any of the 30 states which prohibit Open Primaries; and the prevention of all voters from having their votes for moderate candidates really count as a result of living in virtually all of the 50 states and territories that do not have ranked-choice voting in their elections.

The fact that Washington and not the country is polarized and dysfunctional does not guarantee that American democracy will not suffer additional blows in the weeks and months ahead, even a mortal blow. Yet it should be reassuring that the people of the United States are not at war with each other and revolting. Most, rather, are revolted by what is happening in Washington in recent days.

Harnessing the decency and moral center of the vast majority of Americans, not only the 40% who do not identify as Democrats and Republicans but the majority of the 60% who do, can be done by the president, Congress, and pro-democracy organizations in the days ahead.

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