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

Your Take: Polarized thinking

Your Take: Polarized thinking
The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumSep 30, 2022
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

Recently, we published an op-ed about the connection between polarized thinking, depression and anxiety. Recognizing our thinking has become polarized is the first step to break the cycle – embracing that nuance and complexity are simply part of life instead of catastrophic and uncontrollable variables.

In conjunction with that essay, we asked our readers two questions:

1. How do you minimize your own polarized thinking?

2. What media do you consume and how does that increase or decrease your black and white thinking?

In dozens of responses, we heard from you on your own techniques for guarding against polarized thinking and your media consumption habits. Responses have been edited for length and clarity. Here’s a recap.

By debating others! I'm a founding member of my high-school's debate team, where I learned to listen to ideas, trying to find flaws in my opposition’s line of thinking while they do the same to me. My own opinions have been changed on multiple occasions due to debates, and advocating for resolutions that you oppose is a great way to broaden your way of thinking. ~Robert Hamblin

Most importantly, I try not to hang out among people or media sources that promote black and white thinking. In the last three months, I averaged less than four hours a month watching or listening to any news shows or viewing sports or other forms of electronic entertainment. I never let the radio or TV play in the background. ~Will Carter

When I catch myself getting worked up with self-righteousness or making sweeping, negative statements about "them," I know I'm in dangerous territory. Then, I remind myself of past times when I've been misled by those on my own side who've cherry-picked the facts, used out-of-date information, etc. I aim to replace self-righteous anger with a vaguely uncomfortable feeling that I may not have the whole picture. ~Riley Hart

I read a variety of magazines. I find that The New Republic offers critiques of a wide spectrum of political stances, including an insightfulness that wish Democrats would read and heed for the party's (and nation's) own good. ~James Rodell

My biggest struggle is trying to hear what people who may disagree with me are thinking. It is so hard to be still and listen for the whole thought. And, truthfully, often I find the thought wrong or illogical or missing something. But it pays to listen. ~Kathleen Finderson

I have a sincere commitment to understand the other side, and more importantly, the other person with the opposite side. It’s described as focusing on the third thought. First thought is our emotional reaction to whatever the person said. The second thought is to explain, rationally, why I am right and you are wrong. The third thought is to really understand that other person's point and, even better, that other person (aka who they are, what they care about, how we are similar). I look for solutions, I look for common ground, I try to make the best argument for the side I disagree with, and I read articles to help me do that. I often do some multisided research specifically on whatever issue catches my attention. Doing a balanced search on AllSides helps me do that – it pulls left, center and right articles from across the web on whatever I search.

~John Gable (founder of AllSides)

I think the best method for managing polarized thinking is the 5/5/2 test. Passing the test requires some self-awareness and introspection, as you noted, and puts some tangible targets in place. To pass, a person must have:

  • Five or more close friends who are on the opposite side of the aisle from them.
  • Five or more personal political beliefs that are on the opposite side of their typical political preference.
  • Two or more regular news sources that are on the opposite side of their typical political preference.

~Travis Monteleone

I recently realized my family and friends who have embraced the former president suddenly put me in an all-or-nothing bucket – if I didn't travel their road, I embraced the status quo. I was gobsmacked. I have been standing up to the status quo for over 50 years. I just think we form a more perfect union in a different way than they. So now, when I see myself feeling that all-or-nothing upset with others, I check myself. I listen differently. I speak to them, not a narrative. ~Jeanene Louden

I do not try to minimize my polarized thinking. I have consciously taken the side of keeping what democracy we still have in the United States and trying to make it work better for all the people of this country. I oppose reactionary conservatism, Christian conservatism, white nationalism and most of all the cult of Trumpism. I think human beings have the capacity for self-governance without a top-down authority to make them do what is right. ~Jack Noldon

I try to be open to looking at information from different ends of the spectrum. It does not eliminate polarized thinking but it decreases it. I have digital subscriptions to The New York Times, The Economist, The Epoch Times, The Telegraph. I read articles on the Deutsche Welle app and a news app called MxM for headlines, etc. I have a subscription to Die Weltwoche (Swiss) and listen to a 30-minute summary of the chief editor Roger Klöppel most mornings. I watch or listen to maybe 50 percent of War Room’s daily show, watch Tucker Carlson maybe four out of five days; record and watch two or three episodes of Greta van Susteren on Newsmax. I have a subscription to Victor Davis Hanson articles and podcasts (one of my favorites and I feel I learn a lot from him on real history). The newsletter from MoveOn.org because I want to know what goes on with the “other side.” So now you know why I get nothing done around here and why I’m never bored. ~Inge Schlegel

Media sources identified by our readers, alphabetically listed:

  • AllSides.com (who also hosts a publicly sourced media bias chart here.)
  • The Associated Press
  • Axios
  • BBC
  • Bridge Alliance Daily Resource
  • Broadcast news
  • The Christian Science Monitor
  • CNN
  • C-SPAN
  • The Dispatch
  • The Economist
  • The Epoch Times
  • The Federalist
  • Fox News Channel
  • The Fulcrum
  • Le Monde
  • Local news via papers and TV
  • The Marginalian
  • The Motley Fool
  • MSNBC
  • NPR
  • National Review
  • The New Republic
  • The New York Post
  • The New York Times
  • Newsmax
  • Newsweek
  • PBS
  • Reason Magazine
  • Sheryl Atkisson
  • The Sun (monthly magazine)
  • The Telegraph
  • Wall Street Journal
  • War Room
  • The Washington Post

We sincerely thank everyone for sharing “your take” on polarized thinking, for reading and including The Fulcrum in your media diet.


Latest news

A person's hand holding a stamp above a vote deposit box.
Democracy

When Rivals Converge: Electoral Influence Beyond the Cold War

A display entitled 'The Dirty Business of Slavery' at the President's House on August 9, 2025 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Democracy

Trump's Perversion of U.S. History

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room
Ethics & Leadership

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room

Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

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

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

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

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
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
© Copyright 2026