Kyle Kondik, Managing Editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, talks about redistricting, the special election in Alaska, and new ratings for House of Representative seats.
This Thanksgiving, do not follow the old maxim that we should never discuss politics at the dinner table.
Many people's emotions are running high right now. Elections often bring out a wide range of feelings, whether pride and optimism for those who are pleased with the results or disappointment and frustration from those who aren’t. After a long and grueling election season, we need to connect with and not avoid one another.
Donald Trump's presidential win is sparking a surge of family and friendship breakups. To get a pulse on what people are thinking and feeling,BuzzFeed asked readers if they had cut anyone out of their life over Trump's win, and they received several illuminating responses.
"I have no contact with anyone in my 'family,' even the ones that I kept in my life at a distance after 2016," one person wrote. "They voted for someone who doesn't care if my career helping children is defunded, that my LGBT+ child may lose their right to marry, that my child with a disability may lose their IEP funding, that my immigrant husband may lose his visa."
While I respect people's decision to distance themselves from those they believe are an affront to their viewpoints and values, I choose to lean in.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
It is a knee-jerk reaction for someone to withdraw to avoid conflict. By not addressing issues head-on, friction can sometimes build up and eventually explode into a more considerable disagreement.
I do not engage in an attempt to convince someone to convert to my side of the fence, figuratively speaking. I engage because I want to better understand the person in front of me as a human being and not by the labels that subvert them and oversimplify complex issues affecting all of us.
In times of high conflict, it's common for people to split into two opposing groups and view each other negatively. This can lead to generalizations and name-calling, which often dehumanizes the other side and can escalate tensions. A more productive approach is to seek a deeper understanding of the complex factors that contribute to different perspectives. By doing so, we can help reduce polarization and foster more constructive dialogue.
The public is also highly critical of partisan polarization's impact on politics. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, more than eight in 10 Americans (86 percent) say the following is a good description of politics: “Republicans and Democrats are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems.” Asked to describe in their own words the biggest problem with the political system, 22 percent of Americans volunteer partisan polarization or lack of partisan cooperation.
Elected officials spend so much time arguing their viewpoints that they must often remember to listen. And listening is the foundation of collaboration.
As a solutions journalism practitioner, I leverageComplicating the Narratives, a strategy that helps journalists find new ways to report on controversial issues and polarizing politics. It draws on the experience of experts in conflict mediation. When reporters use these strategies, they listen better, ask more revealing questions, effectively introduce opposing viewpoints and embrace nuance in their reports. They learn to tell more accurate, richer and fuller stories.
I recently had a conversation about the presidential election with my lifelong friend, Fernando Barboto. Fernando and I are the children of South American immigrants. We were born in Paterson, New Jersey (an inner city just outside New York City), and are married with children. He's a Republican, and I am an independent voter. He voted for Trump, and I voted for Vice President Kamala Harris.
Paterson, a diverse suburban area in Passaic County, supported Hillary Clinton with 74 percent of the vote in 2016 but chose Trump in this year's election. This region in the northern part of the state has typically leaned Democratic. However, Trump garnered approximately 95,000 votes, while Harris received around 89,000.
I applied the CTN technique of looping, in which one summarizes what's been heard from the person they are talking to. It helps in two ways. First, it lets you check to see if you are, in fact, hearing correctly. The other thing looping does is show the person that you are listening. They know they are being heard because one repeats back what they said. It also invites them to go deeper and tell you more.
Fernando and I conversed and sometimes debated to understand better what drove our decision to vote for Trump and Harris. We discovered that we had more in common than what the extreme narratives in legacy media's news coverage of the economy and immigration misled us to believe.
“The most potent driver in the election was economic discontent, expressed in President-elect Donald Trump’s gains with most demographics," said Clarissa Martínez de Castro, vice president of the Latino Vote Initiative at UnidosUS. "If there is a mandate, it’s on that: raise wages and bring down food, housing and health care costs."
The American Electorate Poll's found that the cost of living/inflation (52 percent) and jobs and the economy (36 percent) were the primary motivators for Hispanic voters. Those were also high on Fernando's and my lists.
"[If] you want to see what the state of the economy is? Just go to the grocery store," said Fernando. He shared disappointment with President Joe Biden's administration for not doing more to help ease the financial strain. Exit polls indicate that inflation significantly influenced Trump's electoral success. According to an ABC Newsexit poll, over two-thirds of voters perceived the economy as being in poor condition. Additionally, a CBS Newsexit pollrevealed that three-quarters of voters viewed inflation as a hardship.
However, when it comes to attributing responsibility to the Biden-Harris administration, opinions among economists vary. While some economists acknowledge that the administration bears some responsibility, the majority, according to a USA TODAY report involving seven economists, emphasize that the global pandemic was the primary driver of the nation's inflation crisis rather than the current administration's actions. I agree. The Biden administration did not induce the country's economic hardship; it inherited it.
Various indicators can assess an economy's health, with gross domestic product being the most widely utilized. GDP reflects the total production, expenditure and income generated within an economy over a specific timeframe. Recent reports from Newsweek indicate that the U.S. is performing better than its G7 counterparts. While all G7 nations have faced challenges with high inflation in the post-pandemic period, the U.S. has still achieved economic growth, primarily attributed to improvements in the labor market.
"The enormous labor market churn of COVID in 2020-21 had the unintended benefit of moving millions of lower-income workers to better jobs, more income security, and/or running their own businesses," Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Axios.
Despite the overall positive trend, there is a noticeable disparity in how the nation's economy impacts Americans from various economic backgrounds. "Although the household incomes managed to keep pace, albeit with some lags, the situation remains precarious for many who are living paycheck to paycheck, often requiring a second job and/or relying on credit with record-high finance charges," John Min, chief economist at Monex USA, told Newsweek.
Ahead of Election Day, a Redfield & Wilton Strategies polling revealed that 69 percent of those planning to vote for Trump believed the economy was on the road to ruin, while only 22 percent of Harris backers thought the same. Fernando agreed with me that gas prices have improved, but his decision to vote Republican was primarily due to lackluster advancements in other pocketbook issues. "It's been tough on all of us," he said.
Another significant policy issue influencing Latino men's support for Trump was immigration, particularly as it was closely linked to economic concerns during this election cycle. While about four in 10 voters under 45 across racial and ethnic groups identified the economy as the top issue facing the country, older white and Latino voters were likely also to cite immigration, with about one-quarter of each saying that was thetop issue. Fernando and I are both 53 years old.
Historically, immigrants have often been blamed for economic downturns in the United States, and the Republican Party effectively utilized this narrative by attributing challenges such as job accessibility, low wages, and affordable housing to immigrants. Brookings reported that 74 percent of Americans encountered misinformation suggesting that "immigrants are taking jobs and causing an increase in unemployment for people born in the U.S."
Fernando and I agreed that immigration can enhance economic growth. His concern is about criminal activity and terrorism threats emanating from the southern border. "You hear all these news reports about gang members coming over the border illegally, and [sanctuary] cities aren't doing anything about it," Fernando said. A poll by the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University found that 57 percent of respondents were most concerned about an increase in “violence” and “crime” due to the impact of mass immigration.
I disagreed with him. The perception that immigration contributes to rising crime rates is a longstanding belief held by many, persisting for over a century. This view continues to be entrenched despite increasing evidence suggesting otherwise, partly due to politicians like Trump who amplify this narrative. The Conversation's analysis indicates that numerous studies have consistently found no causal relationship between immigration and increased crime rates.
Still, I conceded that statistics are a poor solace for victims' families like — like the family of Jocelyn Nungaray, who was strangled by two undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally,accordingto US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Fernando and I also discussed the U.S. involvement in the Ukraine-Russian war and the war in Gaza. We also discussed the character of the candidates and Trump's criminal conviction. The conversation followed a similar pattern of respectful tension facilitated by my applying the four pillars of Complicating the Narrative:
According to Reuters' 2019 Digital News Report, 41 percent of Americans sometimes or often avoid the news. The primary reasons for this avoidance are negativity and feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. However, news outlets have the potential to play a crucial role in helping audiences navigate divisions and learn about solutions to the challenges facing their communities.
As director of solutions journalism and diversity, equity, and inclusion with The Fulcrum, I strive to tell fair and accurate stories. I help writers and journalists find new ways to report on controversial issues and polarizing topics by drawing on the CTN approach. Using these strategies, we listen better, ask more revealing questions, effectively introduce opposing viewpoints and embrace nuance in reporting.
Fernando and I are concerned about and hopeful for many of the same things. We just have different ideas about how to solve and realize them. In our hour-long conversation, we successfully communicated through our differences.
Engaging in passionate discussions about political views and being open to discomfort can contribute to a society capable of addressing various issues. At a fundamental level, this involves fostering respectful discourse, even in informal settings like family meals. Encouraging political conversations can start within families and extend to broader societal interactions.
Balta is director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives for The Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is publisher of the Latino News Network and a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Thanksgiving is often portrayed as a minefield of political debates, with an annual surge of guides offering tips to "survive" political conversations at the dinner table. But how useful are these guides?
Research actually shows that most Americans neither want nor need the abundance of advice. While the vast majority of Americans celebrate Thanksgiving, relatively few want to talk about politics over the holiday. A 2022 Axios/Ipsos poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe Thanksgiving is not the right time for political discussions. Somewhat similarly, a 2023 Quinnipiac poll found only 29 percent of Americans say they are looking forward to discussing politics at Thanksgiving, less than half the number who say they are hoping to avoid discussing it.
One may think that in this era of “toxic polarization,” the roughly one-fourth of Americans who are open to talking about politics would often negatively impact the Thanksgiving experience. Yet this is not really the case.
According to a2023 YouGov survey, only 16 percent of U.S. adults who celebrate Thanksgiving have ever had arguments about politics at Thanksgiving dinner. Only half of those have ever had Thanksgiving ruined by a political argument, a single-digit fraction of the population.
The length of cross-partisan Thanksgivings is also affected, but only slightly. A meta-analysis of Thanksgiving dinner lengths found that politically diverse gatherings lasted just 6 percent less time than politically uniform ones. That is a fairly marginal impact, reducing a four-hour Thanksgiving by about 15 minutes.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In contrast to these usually rare and minor impacts, one can find dozens of Thanksgiving or holiday political “survival” guides online. This year, these already include aguide published by NPR and a livestreamed video guide released by Braver Angels Central Texas and the Institute for Liberal Values. In addition to perpetuating a misleading narrative that political disagreements destructive to Thanksgiving are widespread, the quality and detail of advice in these guides can vary widely.
Why are there so many guides in the first place, when a large majority of Thanksgivings happen without politics really getting in the way? One clue comes from misperceptions of the people in the other political party. Americans see those in the other party as more eager to talk about politics and more politically extreme than they really are. A survey led by University of Rochester political science professor Jamie Druckman found that registered members of a political party overestimate the share of members of the other party who discuss politics frequently by more than two times, while underestimating the share who like to discuss it rarely by about five times. In addition, More in Common’s Perception Gap research found Americans think 55 percent of those in the other party had extreme views, compared with the 30 percent who actually did.
It is also possible that the journalists who write about these topics are in social contexts where politics is more salient and contentious. Additionally, those who have political issues with their family and friends may be more drawn to organizations like Braver Angels, even though they represent a surprisingly small minority of Americans; a 2022 New York Times/Siena College poll found fewer than one-fifth of Americans said politics had hurt their friendships or family relationships. (Note: James has held various volunteer leadership roles in Braver Angels.)
Guidance for how to have political conversations is still useful, but it does not need to be so focused on Thanksgiving. In such a large country, much guidance should follow a “stop, drop and roll” model of giving at most three pieces of memorable advice. Most adults lack the time, interest or energy to integrate more into their busy lives. Americans should be reminded of these year-round, not just at one time of year.
James is partial to a call to be SVL (pronounced like “civil”) to share Stories, relate to the conversation partner’s Values and Listen, based on advice from Stanford sociologist Robb Willer. Another memorable approach is Urban Rural Action’s ABCs of Constructive Dialogue (essentially, Asking the conversation partner’s perspective, Breaking down one’s own view to make it understandable and Checking our understanding of their perspective).
Thanksgiving should be a time of unity and reflection. Most Americans do not need to worry if they will “survive” Thanksgiving. Americans can instead thrive, enjoying themselves in the company of friends and family.
Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Huss is co-founder of Project PosiNews.
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.
