Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ousting of Speaker McCarthy helps prove country not polarized

Opinion

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

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep ReadingShow less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less