ReConsider Media combines podcasts and articles to discuss international and domestic politics, political structures, and the news of today. We strive to provide a reliable, unbiased resource for processing information and understanding the context around many of the issues we face. Reconsiders mission is to fight political polarization & improve the quality of political discourse by providing practical discussion strategies and provocative content that challenges common narratives.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings
Jul 22, 2024
Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”
It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.
And as more people embrace “we’re at war” framings and language, this amplifies the toxicity of the conflict — and can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The truth is that our conflict, like most conflicts, is complex and nuanced. It is not one side versus the other. It is not a binary battlefield. What we have are debates over a multitude of issues. Some of these issues do cluster in predictable ways, but that doesn’t mean it’s one side versus the other.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The truth is that many Americans have views that don’t abide by “Republican versus Democrat” or “left versus right” framings.
I’ll use myself as an example: I think some antiracism ideas are simplistic and divisive. Some people might categorize some of my views on that and other issues as conservative but I reject that label. I have other views that many would see as liberal but I’d reject that label, too. I don’t see my views as related to some overarching ideological divide or spectrum.
People who embrace a “we’re at war” framing would say that I and others must “pick a side.” But we don’t have to do that — and we shouldn’t do that.
The illogical pressures a polarized society places on us to align with all the stances of one political party or the other may be one reason so many people are no longer identifying as a Republican or Democrat.
To be clear, this is not to say that there aren’t important and emotion-provoking issues. There are. I personally think it’s of the utmost importance that Trump is defeated. But being against Trump doesn’t require a warlike, “one side will win” narrative. It’s a stance on a specific issue: Trump himself. And as with most issues, that stance can be held by both self-described liberals and self-described conservatives.
When we embrace warlike narratives about our divides, our divides get more toxic. And because animosity and fear lead to more extreme and non-negotiable stances, such framings also help create the very things many of us are upset about.
In their book “The Myth of Left and Right,” Verlan and Hyrum Lewis make a persuasive case that “liberals” and “conservatives” are largely social groupings — not groupings based on a coherent, overarching ideology. The work of researcher Michael Macy supports this idea; he’s investigated how group stances can be formed in unpredictable, random ways. This more flexible and tribe-oriented view of our divides help explain how group stances can shift suddenly and dramatically (for example, Trump moving the GOP to economic stances previously associated with liberals).
“If people saw the reality of political pluralism, they’d see that both parties stand for many unrelated issues, some good, some bad. As is, they have the delusion that there is just one big issue, so if a party is on the correct side (left or right) of the one big issue, then they are correct about everything,” Hyrum Lewis wrote in a email,
People who wrongly perceive a winner-take-all battlefield fail to see that society can absorb and process conflicts in complex and unpredictable ways. Yes, some issues may have or require clear winners, but others might result in mixed outcomes or creative compromises. America’s mixed economy, with its capitalistic and socialistic aspects, shows how ideas that are sometimes framed as at-odds can coexist. Also, America is a big country; some stances on an issue might prosper in some areas of society but fail in others.
If we want to avoid worst-case scenarios of chaos, dysfunction and violence, we must think about how our narratives and language can make those scary paths either more likely or less likely.
We can reduce political toxicity by avoiding “we’re at war” and “left versus right” rhetoric. We can debate issues and work towards our own political goals without using such flattening and conflict-amplifying rhetoric.
Not only will that help reduce our political toxicity, it will help people be more persuasive in their activism on specific issues. When our divides are framed as a war between left and right, that makes it almost impossible for us to persuade someone on the “other side” who may have otherwise supported our stance on a specific issue. By promoting the idea that there’s no war but just a bunch of issues, that reduces team-based pressures on people and helps them make more nuanced choices.
To avoid worst-case scenarios in America, we’ll need to help politically passionate people see how avoiding warlike rhetoric isn’t just something they do for the country — but something that will help them achieve their own goals.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Don’t Miss Out
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands at the 2019 G20 summit in Oasaka, Japan.
Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images
Trump is a past, present and future threat to national security
Jul 19, 2024
Corbin is professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.
Psychological scientists who study human behavior concur that past actions are the best predictor of future actions. If past actions caused no problem, then all is well. If, however, a person demonstrated poor behavior in the past, well, buckle up. The odds are very great the person will continue to perform poorly if given the chance.
Donald Trump’s past behavior regarding just one area of protecting American citizens — specifically national defense — tells us that if he becomes the 47th president, we’re in a heap of trouble. Examining Trump’s past national security endeavors needs to be seriously examined by Americans before voting on Nov. 5.
A vast majority of Americans recall how Trump cozied up to Russia as our rival assisted in his 2016 election with disinformation, misinformation and propaganda about Hillary Clinton. It’s no surprise that Trump repeated that same behavior when he and his friend Vladimir Putin — who he referred to as a “genius” — had Russia interfere on Trump’s behalf in the 2020 election. As reported by the conservative-oriented Wall Street Journal, election interference by Russia is already being repeated for the 2024 election.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Of major concern to journalists who write for the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (Murdoch also owns Fox News), is Trump’s relationship with the CRINK nations — China, Russia, Iran and North Korea — and its effect on our national security.
Trump’s embrace of CRINK’s dictators as he plans for another term as president is disturbing as noted by the Journal article.
CRINK, along with a few of their allies, have formed an axis of evil that is in direct opposition to Western power, freedom and democracy. CRINK’s authoritarian-fascism rule is one Trump has embraced by the explicit praise he’s lathered on each of CRINK’s dictators.
Students of history know China has been trying to take control of Taiwan since 1954, Russia started attacking Ukraine in 2014, Iran began its anti-Israel stance in 1979 and the North Korea-South Korea conflict has been in existence since 1950. But Trump is not a student of history or international relationships; he’s a transactional individual who adores power-brokers.
On May 8, 2018, President Trump withdrew America from a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. How’d that work out? On April 13, Iran launched more than 300 missiles on Israel. This act alone has caused U.S. intelligence services and international officials to conclude Iran poses a significant threat to America and its allies. For the record, Russia has a very large arsenal of around 6,000 nuclear warheads, China has over 400 and North Korea has 50.
Joseph Collins, a retired Army colonel who served as a deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations and is lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is critical of Trump’s record. He notes in addition to Trump ending the Iranian nuclear development agreement, little was gained by Trump withdrawing America from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, the Paris Climate Accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the United Nations Human Rights Council and Health Organization.
Collins contends these series of Trump’s withdrawals has allowed “China and other powers to fill into the leadership vacuum. U.S. security partners are troubled by these developments and see them as evidence of a new, selfish neo-isolationism on the part of the nation that used to take pride in its leadership of the new world.”
Furthermore, Collins has seen first-hand that Trump has a dysfunctional decision-making style. It’s well documented the former president did not have long intelligence briefings, didn’t read detailed briefing materials, misplaced confidential documents, designated some secret national documents as personal, shared classified information with unauthorized foreigners, and made major decisions without consultation with allies and advisors.
In summary, Collins states “it is impossible to give the Trump national security policy good marks.”
Let’s face the reality of homeland security. America cannot stand alone. We desperately need to maintain a solid relationship with our 200-plus allies, increase Department of Defense appropriations and vigorously oppose CRINK’s advances or we will cease to exist as a democracy.
Should Trump return to the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, the safety and security of 342 million Americans is in jeopardy.
Now that you are fully aware of Trump’s national defense blunders and know past actions are the best predictor of future actions, is he our best choice to be leader of the free world? If Trump is elected, you can kiss democracy good-bye and “CRINK-U.S.” will be the newest acronym for authoritarian-fascism dictatorship-oriented countries.
Keep ReadingShow less
It takes a team
Jul 19, 2024
Molineaux is the lead catalyst for American Future, a research project that discovers what Americans prefer for their personal future lives. The research informs community planners with grassroots community preferences. Previously, Molineaux was the president/CEO of The Bridge Alliance.
We love heroic leaders. We admire heroes and trust them to tackle our big problems. In a way, we like the heroes to take care of those problems for us, relieving us of our citizen responsibilities. But what happens when our leaders fail us? How do we replace a heroic leader who has become bloated with ego? Or incompetent?
Heroic leaders are good for certain times and specific challenges, like uniting people against a common enemy. We find their charisma and inspiration compelling. They help us find our courage to tackle things together. We become a team, supporting the hero’s vision.
Yet there are several situations where heroic leadership is not helpful or perhaps harmful. I find heroic leadership harmful when the chosen hero causes distrust, encouraging paranoia among their followers. We must choose our heroes carefully, identifying values and virtues our country needs, then measuring our leaders by these values and virtues.
A project launched in 2019 sought to educate college students to “Vote by Design.” Its workbook helped voters to think about the qualifications needed for the president, with professional and personal qualities. Reading through the workbook felt similar to serving on jury duty. I didn’t want to think this much, but once I was there and reminded of my role as a citizen, I knew I had to do my best.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
As citizens, our role is to be job interviewers! The more we identify qualities we want our chosen and elected leaders to have, the easier it is to choose.
Few are happy with the 2024 choices we’ve been offered for president. Our excitement or feelings about the candidates are currently unimportant. It’s what we do with the choices we have that matter. Have you considered the team supporting the two likely candidates? We could extend this exploration of values and virtues to the vice presidential picks and one or more likely Cabinet members. This is prudent in 2024 because both candidates are elders. Death is a possibility. Who are their current and past advisors?
Who is the “hero in waiting?” And what qualifications and skills do they have? They will likely be needed to support or replace the president. Who are the candidates surrounding themselves with? What type of leaders are on the team? This choice to examine the team surrounding each candidate is needed because our definition of a leader has been expanding from “heroic” to “facilitator.” What a welcome change!
A facilitative leader gathers a team of experts and guides them to bring their best to the job. The leader facilitates a solution that was not previously known but is better for all the input received. Facilitative leaders usually share credit for accomplishing the goal with the entire team. It is a longer and messier process to achieve results. Patience is required. Abraham Lincoln was this type of leader. In his time, he held the nation together through a Civil War.
Heroic leaders command action. They tend to make everything black and white, avoiding nuance. Our human brains love this. It is simple and easy to follow. It’s also like having a hammer and thinking every problem is a nail. If instead, the problem is complicated, the hammer approach makes things worse. Teddy Roosevelt was that type of leader, exposing corruption with his Rough Rider persona. He was sometimes effective and often there were unintended consequences for his actions. People were the collateral damage for his heroism.
Our duty calls as we enter the remaining months of an election that no one wants. If we abdicate our role as citizens, power-hungry people will fill the void with whatever benefits them the most. It is up to us to pick the best presidential team to move our nation forward.
Keep ReadingShow less
Former President Donald Trump attends the first day of the 2024 Republican National Convention at Milwaukee on July 15.
Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
A presidential assassination attempt offers a time to reflect
Jul 19, 2024
Nye is the president and CEO of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress and a former member of Congress from Virginia.
In the wake of an assassination attempt on an American presidential candidate, we are right to take a moment to reflect on the current trajectory of our politics, as we reject violence as an acceptable path and look for ways to cool the kinds of political rhetoric that might radicalize Americans to the point of normalizing brute force in our politics.
Even though the motivations of the July 13 shooter are yet unclear, it’s worth taking a moment to try to reset ourselves and make an earnest effort to listen to our better angels. However, unless we change the way we reward politicians in our electoral system, it is very likely that the opportunity of this moment to calm our politics will be lost, like many others before it.
We have a fundamental problem in our politics that negates efforts to encourage politicians to take a better road, or the media to play a healthier role. As long as our electoral system incentivizes politicians to engage in incendiary rhetoric and push the bounds of civility, and rewards this behavior with election or re-election, all our best efforts to appeal to logic and good sense are limited to marginal potential effect. As long as media outlets have a business model that rewards focus on dramatic storylines and bombastic political behavior, then that is where their focus will remain. And as long as we leave the responsibility for voter turnout to the campaigns instead of our society as a whole, we will continue to have an incentive for campaigns to engage in manipulative rule-crafting and radical appeals to emotion, because those are the proven ways to determine who shows up at election time.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The silver lining is that we have a pathway to changing the incentive built into the electoral system itself. Ideas for such reform are covered almost daily in this outlet, and momentum is building across the states. There are election innovations on the ballot this November in Nevada, Oregon and South Dakota, with others pending, that would change the incentive structure for candidates, compelling them to appeal to a much broader set of voters so they can make the majority requirement to win office. Unfortunately, there are also efforts on ballots, for example in Alaska, to undo or preclude such election innovations from continuing.
If we truly want to change political rhetoric past this moment, maintaining focus on these reforms is vital. It won’t fix all that is wrong with the course of our politics or heal all the divisions, but it would place a fundamentally different set of incentives in place that are shown to actually work. Without mandating voting, as Australia does for example, the problem of campaign responsibility for turnout will remain, but some of the ill effect could be moderated if candidates have to appeal to a majority to win, rather than a hard-core plurality.
Current attention is naturally on former President Donald Trump, who, in the aftermath of surviving a brutal assassination attempt that sadly took the life of a bystander, spoke of unity and who reportedly intended to amend his approach during the convention to strike a more civil tone. Having been one of the chief practitioners of incendiary rhetoric, the idea that he might seek to lower the political temperature is certainly welcome. If for example, he chose to reflect on the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and define that as the kind of violent behavior we should avoid in our politics, and call on his own followers to put aside incendiary descriptions of political adversaries in the best interests of the country, he might have some immediate positive effect on the coarse nature of political dialogue in America.
We would still have to wonder, though, how long we could rely on the good will of politicians whose electoral prospects are raised by appealing to the emotions of that small and extreme element of our politics that dominate primary election contests, or improved by the ability to fire up low propensity voters with existential and apocalyptic warnings about the intentions of their political foes. As long as those behaviors win elections, the incentive to engage in them will remain overwhelming.
Fortunately, we have answers to some of the structural questions. But if we allow ourselves to believe that simply calling on political leaders to do better or be more civil will put us on a better path, we will fail.
Keep ReadingShow less
A personal note to America in troubled times
Jul 19, 2024
Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.
I wanted to address Americans after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Consider this a personal note directly to you (yes, you, the reader!). And know that I have intentionally held off in expressing my thoughts to allow things to settle a bit. There’s already too much noise enveloping our politics and lives.
Like most Americans, I am praying for the former president, his family and all those affected by last weekend’s events. There is no room for political violence in our nation.
I'm not here to offer political commentary or make predictions about this act of senseless violence. That’s not my role. But here's the deal. We are all suffering these days. There is so much division, acrimony, recriminations and hatred in our land. Right now, my chief concern is this: How do any of us — how do you — maintain a sense of hope during this time? How do you stay grounded when things can feel so confusing and disorienting — when we can feel unmoored?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Our nation is at an impasse. Things may get worse before they get better. But that does not mean there is no hope to be found. There is a way to find authentic hope during these tumultuous times and stay grounded at the same time.
I travel America almost weekly, working with community leaders and active citizens to support their efforts to catalyze and unleash change that addresses what matters most to people and strengthens their communities’ civic culture. In spite of the divisions we hear about every day, everywhere I go I see people from all walks of life, from all political persuasions, and from all faiths coming together to build. To figure out what they can agree on, amid our real differences, to get in motion and to take shared action. They are making a real, practical difference.
I take hope from these efforts. So can you. But to do so, you must first be willing to see them — that means you must actively look for them, lift them up and keep them in your heart and mind. You must be a guardian of these efforts even as the noise of the world seeks to crowd them out or devalue them. It does not matter how large or small the change is that they produce. What matters is that they are proof that we can restore our belief in one another and move forward together.
I am also traveling America on our campaign, “Enough. Time to Build.” The response to this campaign has been remarkable — and is growing by leaps and bounds each day. Honestly, it is spreading so fast I can barely keep up. Indeed, we are the only national campaign that is being invited to communities of all political persuasions — red and blue and purple. The important question is why?
It is a sign of just how hungry people are for a new path — a civic path — forward. Where change begins in our local communities and grows from there. This is how significant change has often started in our country. I take hope from people’s response to this effort. As Fanny Lou Hamer said, “People are sick and tired of being sick and tired.” You may be, too.
Staying grounded when you feel like things are coming apart is never easy. Platitudes only make things worse. Calls to simply bridge our divides are not enough. Raising the volume of our debate only adds more anxiety.
Being grounded requires that we see reality for what it is — and then put a stake in the ground about what we seek it to be. Progress during times like these throughout our history — from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to civil rights and voting rights to gay rights — has never been easy. But we have also never given up, or given in. We persevered. We came together around kitchen tables, in church basements and in civic halls — and we refused to settle. History teaches us that it is everyday Americans who are most responsible for our progress. That we can once again lead this country forward if enough of us come together around our shared aspirations rather than allowing our differences to overcome us.
Like me, you may be deeply troubled by what is happening in our country — and to our country. It keeps me awake at night. At times, my anxiety rises. I fear things coming apart. Until I think about what gives me hope and how I can stay grounded. Then, I rise up and do the work. I know you do, too. Every single day.
Keep looking for where you can find hope. Let’s put a stake in the ground about the kind of country we seek to build. And let’s go together.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More