Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Talking across the political aisle isn’t a cure-all - but it does help reduce hostility

Talking across the political aisle isn’t a cure-all - but it does help reduce hostility
dane_mark/Getty Images
By Dominik Stecuła,
Dominik Stecuła
See More Writings by author
Matthew Levendusky
Matthew Levendusky
See More Writings by author
Jan 13, 2023

Stecuła is an assistant professor of political science at Colorado State University.

Levendusky is a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania.

Simmering tension in American politics came to a head two years ago, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. The failed insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, resulted in several deaths and injuries to almost 150 police officers.

But on the cusp of the November 2022 midterm elections, the majority of Republicans said they still believed the false claim asserted by the Capitol rioters – that President Joe Biden won in 2020 because of voter fraud.

The Jan. 6 riots are an extreme example of what happens when a country becomes trapped in a cycle of polarization and distrust. But that does not mean there is no hope for bridging that divide.

We are political science scholars who specialize in political polarization. Our recent work suggests that while there is no quick fix to the problems of polarization and animosity, there are ways to lower the temperature of the country’s politics.

Talking can bring the temperature down

About 80% of registered voters — Democrats and Republicans alike — said in October 2020 that their differences with the other side were about core American values, not just differences of opinion. Majorities of both registered Republicans and Democrats also have called the other side immoral and dishonest in 2022 public opinion polls.

Unsurprisingly, then, few voters and most people do not want to talk to those on the other side of the aisle, thinking it will be a waste of time.

The truth of the matter, however, is quite different.

We conducted an academic study throughout 2019, bringing people who said they identified as either Republicans or Democrats together in person for cross-party conversations. We intended to examine the effects of in-person discussion on polarization.

In total, we hosted over 500 people from around metropolitan Philadelphia in community centers, libraries, schools and any other venue that might have us. The results of this experiment, released in November 2021 in a short book titled “We Need to Talk,” suggest that such conversations offer a pathway to minimizing animosity.

In our work, we found that in-person conversations with people from the other side of the political spectrum reduced partisan hostility by almost 20%.

Participants first read a short article suggesting that there is a surprising amount of consensus and common ground among Republicans and Democrats. Every participant then took turns expressing their agreement or disagreement with the text, and then were asked to discuss American politics more broadly.

Each group talked for approximately 15 minutes. In order to ensure that people felt comfortable expressing themselves, we did not record or monitor their conversations in any way. We also asked that people remain civil and respectful and to stick to a specific issue or problem.

These conversations have several different effects. First, they help people to see that sometimes the parties share common ground. Conversation exposes that people can agree on some issues, at least some of the time.

Second, conversation also helps people better understand other people’s point of view, and may also help them see that other people might have a valid reason for their beliefs.

Importantly, this depolarizing effect did not disappear the moment participants left the group discussions. When we interviewed people a week later, we found that talking it out had a lasting impact on the participants.

One of our favorite moments while conducting this study came after one of our first sessions at a public library in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Several people stayed after the study in order to continue their conversations, to the point where the librarian had to come in and ask us to leave, as the room was needed for the next group that had reserved it.

In-person benefits

When people think of those from the other political party, they have a rather warped view of who that person is. For example, Americans think that almost 1 in 3 Democrats are LGBTQ, while, in reality, only 6% are. Because people mostly interact with those like themselves, their views of the other party are heavily influenced by the mass media. Many media sources — especially social media sites — tend to amplify the loudest and most extreme voices on both sides, drowning out the bulk of people in the middle.

But as we found in our research, when people see that not all people in the other party are extremists, they realize that they might have painted the other party with too broad of a brush.

Practically, this kind of engagement can have different possible effects – including reducing political violence like what occurred on Jan. 6.

How, then, can Americans be encouraged to bridge the political divide and find common ground? That is hard, no doubt, but there are many civic groups that are working to do just that. For example, we’re both members of the scholars council for the bipartisan organization Braver Angels, which is an independent group bringing Americans together, trying to bridge political divides on many different issues.

Many other nonprofit groups like this exist throughout the country, and a number of foundations and other groups are supporting that important work.

It’s in people’s own hands

Bridging these divides is ultimately up to all Americans. Most people avoid in-person political discussions across lines of disagreement because they fear confrontation and discomfort.

But if people enter a conversation with an open mind — and a willingness to hear the other side without trying to persuade them — they will likely learn something. Obviously, given most people’s social networks, this is not an opportunity that arises every day. But if it does, it presents an important opportunity to learn more about those from the other party, and how you might have some common ground. There are many guides online to having such conversations that can help people get started.

To be clear, conversation is not a cure-all for political division and animosity, and there will be divides that cannot be bridged. The goal is not unanimity, but a better understanding of one another.

There is no quick fix to the country’s political divisions, but through good faith conversation, Americans may be able to lower the political temperature, at least a little bit.

This article originally appeared in The Conversation.


Latest news

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes
Media & Technology

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026