Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What if the United States is not ripped apart?

What if the United States is not ripped apart?
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.

What if the United States is not being ripped apart? Before there can be growth, whether you are thinking about the life of an individual, a sports team, a muscle or an entire nation, there has to be tension, conflict, and pain. Otherwise, things are calm, stable, moving along smoothly.


The conventional wisdom is that our country is polarized, progressives at war with conservatives, enraged advocates on opposite sides of the fence on matters ranging from guns and abortion to immigration, to teaching gender identity in middle school, and religious freedom and the rights of the LGBTQ community to purchase products and services from companies of their choice. Moreover, Washington, D.C. is regarded as the microcosm of the enraged citizens fighting in the North, the South, the Midwest, and the West. The political system itself is regarded as broken due to gerrymandering, distrust of politicians, distrust of the judicial system, and the corrupt role money plays in politics.

Although Washington, D.C. is the epitome of polarization, the country actually is not polarized. Gallup reports in almost every month in the past year that between 40 % and 44% of American voters identify as independents. Sure, 60% of the country is polarized, and half of that 60% is very polarized. But 60% of the country is not the country.

On some of the major policy areas that the polarization narrative features, abortion and guns, majorities of over 60% of the voters are on the same side: There is no close tug of war among the people on the question of whether Roe v. Wade should have been overturned (solid majority says no) or whether the country needs stronger regulation of guns (solid majority says yes), including background checks for anyone who wants to purchase a gun. How could the country be polarized if 40 to 44 American voters out of 100 do not regard themselves as members of the political parties which MSNBC and Fox News tell us represent the American people and are at war with each other?

Now imagine a possible though admittedly not probable future: What if Mr. Trump, wrestling with four indictments, does not make it to the Republican nomination? What if Republican voters pick former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley? Or what if they pick someone out of the purple like swing state Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin as their nominee?

And what if there is a surge of independents who back the centrist ticket for president and vice president that No Labels has threatened to run (though not fund) if the "environment" is right? Democratic West Virginia Senator Joseph Manchin and former Republican Utah Governor Jon Huntsman have been floated as possible candidates. And what if a bold centrist ticket as opposed to a moderate centrist No Labels ticket emerges that draws the support of many independents?

If Trump is sidelined for, say, Haley, and Manchin and Huntsman have the No Labels backing, a bold centrist ticket emerges, and President Biden and Vice President Harris stay in the race and possibly they become bold centrists, then the leading candidates in the race for president would all be speaking from a broadly sensible point of view. The general election would be absent of hatred, viciousness, craziness, and unconstitutional proposals.

Since the rise of information technology, especially the internet and social media, things change faster than ever before. We therefore should not be too surprised if the country takes a turn in a direction away from the pathetic place where it is today.

The odds do not favor this development, but it cannot be assumed that it will not come about.

With about 100 million American adults who do not think of themselves as Democrats and Republicans, and with a recognizable number of dissenters in both parties in Washington, we must admit that the future is open. Trump is not destined to serve a second term in the White House, and he may end up serving time in a federal prison.

The anxiety, the anguish, the fighting, the meanness that we see daily in the news may be the body politic articulating what the extremists and purists believe and feel but not what 40% -- even 50% -- of American adults believe and feel. At the heart of the American experience there is decency, there is respect for the law, there is love of family, and there is hope for the future. We may yet see the independents, the moderates, and the centrists take control of our destiny.


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less