Becvar serves as Chief Operating Officer of the Bridge Alliance.
In our highly charged political climate, the assertion that polarization is the most urgent issue facing America is a statement often heard (and repeated). But is it truly the crux of the matter?
The May newsletter from Horizons Project brought forward a perspective on this topic by offering reference to a podcast featuring Shannon McGregor called “Is this Democracy.” McGregor challenges the notion that polarization is the core problem, suggesting instead that the major threat to American democracy lies in the radicalizing right. By labeling polarization as the main issue, we may be taking an easy way out, avoiding the critical examination of the actual problem at hand, and fostering an unhealthy rhetoric of reconciliation.
On the latest “How Do We Fix It?” podcast, Bill Shireman discussed the notion that the majority of common-sense voters defy the prevailing divided paradigm. Their discussion highlighted how the recent debt ceiling compromise highlighted that party leaders could work together when necessary, even while their members fan the flames of partisan blame. Similarly, the Democracy Works podcast delved into the perverse incentives and resulting behaviors within the current political system that significantly challenge democracy. Addressing this challenge requires the dedication of public servants and constituents who reject candidates playing games with the well-being of our nation.
Acknowledging the radicalizing aspect of some of America’s political right, anti-Trump conservatives have taken action. In a featured piece in The Fulcrum, David L. Nevins highlights the efforts of organizations like the Renew America Movement, Stand Up Republic, RePAIR, and The New Conservatives Summit. Moreover, Republican lawmakers supporting the For Our Freedom Amendment were recently highlighted by American Promise. The Election Reformers Network reminds us that we can’t always assume the worst about political actors, as evidenced by Republicans’ involvement in the Electoral Count Reform Act. However, recent legislative actions by Texas Republicans on election rules serve as a stark reminder of the challenges we continue to face.
At the Bridge Alliance, we firmly believe that there is no single solution to cure the ailments of our democracy. A recent study by More in Common, reported by the American Values Coalition, revealed that correcting misperceptions about those from the “other party” reduced partisan animosity - but the effect disappeared within a week. This study reinforces the importance of adopting a multi-level approach to address these issues. We need dedicated leaders, and constituents must demand more from them.
Democracy relies on an informed and engaged citizenry, making civic education key to a democratic future. It empowers individuals to evaluate information critically and demand better news reporting. Engaging in conversations with those outside our comfort zones is vital to becoming better civic stewards. Applying hard-earned insights from the peacebuilding and mediation field is essential to be effective. We also need structural changes in how and with what funding we elect our representatives to ensure a healthy democracy.
Fortunately, our nation has a growing and dynamic ecosystem of individuals and organizations tirelessly working towards shared goals. They continue to persevere despite facing backlash and personal risk, driven by their determination to build a stronger democracy for all. Most importantly, they demonstrate that addressing the underlying issues, rather than risking complacency by labeling them all as simply ‘polarization,’ is essential. Only by confronting the genuine threats to our democracy can we pave the way for a more resilient and healthy democratic future.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.