Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

When winning is everything, we all lose

When winning is everything, we all lose

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Winning feels good. REAL GOOD. It feels so good that when we don’t win some of us look for a way to win in another way. We might pick a fight (verbal or physical) with someone we can “take.” Or we might numb ourselves with substances to feel “less bad.” We have made winning so important in our culture that a “winner” can be president and call everyone else a “loser.”


*SIGH*

I’m tired of all the winning at the expense of our integrity. To me, having integrity, dignity and honor is how I define winning. In each interaction I have, am I satisfied with myself? Did I add to the dignity of others? Did I avoid adding to the toxic polarization? Are my actions that no one sees still showing my personal integrity with who I want to be or become?

As I watched the Super Bowl this past weekend, I realized that we’ve normalized lying for the glory of winning something. Yeah, I know this is obvious to many of you. This conundrum between our desire to win and our personal integrity. Is our personal integrity worth so little? And what might this mean for our national integrity?

For our nation to have integrity, we need elected leaders to commit to the process of democracy as more important than “winning.” Democracy is the process of self-rule; it is not the domination of our beliefs over others, infringing on their freedoms. Like anything else in life, if positive traits are carried to the extreme they can be harmful. The pursuit of pleasure and sensual self-indulgence becomes hedonistic and that is dangerous to the self and to society. If admiration for an individual becomes blind hero worship or if rugged individualism ignores the plight of those in need, the potential for those on the left and the right to accept autocracy is increased.

We need more imagination in our world to expand our definition of “winning.” What is the point of winning, beyond a dopamine rush? Similarly, how does winning help you, those near you and our community? What is the cost-benefit analysis of winning? One wins an argument, did it cost a relationship? One wins a game, did it cost camaraderie? One wins a campaign, did it cost societal trust?

What about this missive appeals to you, if any? Are you as angry about it as I am? Is your conscience pricked? Please dig in and don’t look away. Our comfort is not serving us or society in this time of turbulence. Transformation of society requires discomfort – and a willingness to self-examine our own roles in it.

The soul of our nation depends upon our ability to reflect and course correct. By my estimation, continuing to defend our current belief systems on the right and left will probably end with a mix of winners and losers; but also with a nation that as a whole is worse off. Our inability to imagine a new paradigm for “winning” will leave us in the frame that winning is everything.

Winning for the sake of winning means we all lose.

Perhaps refocusing on our collective, human goals and asking ourselves if winning actually brings us closer to the goals we agree upon will be more likely to diffuse tension and increase the probability of success - i.e. winning.

I love the idea of reframing winning (and the acquisition of power) to be of service to others. What does a healthy political system of self-governance look like? What does it feel like? We need to imagine this future and find others to imagine with us.

And perhaps we can develop a healthy winning attitude as a nation; the ability to focus on our long term goals even though the short-term results are not yet evident. We can foster the ability to do so with graciousness and concern for others. Yes, develop a winning attitude and success will follow. You may wonder and ask what I want to win. I want our future to win – a future where we live into the ideals upon which the United States was founded; equal opportunity with liberty and justice for all. I want us to respect each other, to offer generous listening to those different from ourselves. Lastly, I want a dignified life for every person. For you. For our children.

Will you join us to make it so?

Read More

Communication concept with multi colored abstract people icons.

Research shows that emotional, cognitive, and social mechanisms drive both direct and indirect contact, offering scalable ways to reduce political polarization.

Getty Images, Eoneren

“Direct” and “Indirect” Contact Methods Likely Work in Similar Ways, so They Should Both Be Effective

In a previous article, we argued that efforts to improve the political environment should reach Americans as media consumers, in addition to seeking public participation. Reaching Americans as media consumers uses media like film, TV, and social media to change what Americans see and hear about fellow Americans across the political spectrum. Participant-based efforts include dialogues and community-based activities that require active involvement.

In this article, we show that the mechanisms underlying each type of approach are quite similar. The categories of mechanisms we cover are emotional, cognitive, relational, and repetitive. We use the terms from the academic literature, “direct” and “indirect” contact, which are fairly similar to participant and media consumer approaches, respectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Photo illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Chicago History Museum and eobrazy

Getty Images

Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally.

The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

Donald Trump

YouTube

Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

On Friday, October 3rd, President Donald Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum on Truth Social, stating this is the “LAST CHANCE” for Hamas to accept a 20-point peace proposal backed by Israel and several Arab nations. The deadline, set for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EDT, was framed as a final opportunity to avoid catastrophic consequences. Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” and that its fighters would be “hunted down and killed.”

Ordinarily, when a president sets a deadline, the world takes him seriously. In history, Presidential deadlines signal resolve, seriousness, and the weight of executive authority. But with Trump, the pattern is different. His history of issuing ultimatums and then quietly backing off has dulled the edge of his threats and raised questions about their strategic value.

Keep ReadingShow less