There were roughly 32% of eligible voters who voted for Trump (which I guess would translate to 20-ish % of the entire population). Since his approval ratings have gone down, I assume his support (in terms of eligible voters who would vote for him again) are in the low-to-mid 20s right now. This means that the majority of swing voters have changed their minds - as they should.

Out of the remaining 20-25%, we can assume that at least half fully subscribe to what he is doing, on every level - they endorse the racism and sexism and bullying and trampling of the constitution, simply because they think it will hurt people they hate more than it will hurt themselves (which is unlikely to be the case). These are cult-of-personality nincompoops who probably never bothered to vote before they got a TV celebrity as their hateful, ignorant avatar, giving them the feeling of finally being represented by someone they think doesn't talk down to them, and doesn't make them feel inferior (which is obviously deluded). Better to have someone who champions and channels your hate, than to have someone who makes you feel like a loser. They don't care if society burns, because they already feel like society left them behind. The best we can hope from these clueless cretins is that they return to their couches and simply don't vote, ever again. Once Trump is gone, we can at least hope that the cult dissipates.

The remaining half that would still vote for Trump I think are deeply cynical conservative gameplayers. They disregard and excuse his many moral and personal failings because he ultimately enacts policies they support: basically Project 2025 in its entirety. Smaller/ineffectual federal government, fewer business regulations, and greater control reverted to the states. An inegalitarian white, male anglo-saxon, Christian country for the wealthy, upheld by militarized law enforcement and a politicized Supreme Court, with severe restrictions on abortions, DEI, worker's rights and immigration, etc. We cannot expect these ideologues to change, so the only thing we can do is to take power away from them. They are most definitely in the minority, but they sure have made the most of the grasp on power they've managed to secure, and they know they have to race to get as much done as possible before the midterms. Obama, by comparison, contracted his agenda instead, because he cared about the democratic process, which Republicans don't, so they're fine with Trump taking a wrecking ball to the nation. While Obama DID manage to pass his signature legislation, the ACA, we see now how little that matters when it can be dismantled so easily. 

The rich and powerful always come out on top, even after disruption happens - they have plenty of assets they can leverage to shift their investments and hang on to their privileges. The poor and middle classes, by comparison, can't afford to lose anything.

There's meaningful, thoughtful, productive debate about how to make things better. And then there is plain, pointless bullying and deflection. Most current republican commentary amounts to the latter. I'm sure they feel mighty proud about that (looking at you Marjorie Taylor Greene, but also you Karoline Leavitt, and you Stephen Miller, and you Pam Bondi).

I know conservatives love to think that liberals are crybabies and whimper everytime the favorite conservative reality TV buffoon says something vile (which is far too often and far too undignified for a president). As if that behavior somehow makes them "strong", when it's pretty clear to every thinking, feeling human being that they relish "owning the libs" because they have the crude mentality of 3rd grade schoolyard bullies. None of that childishness does the country any good whatsoever, but they don't seem to care about the country as a whole, only their own propagandized ilk (at best).

I hate to disappoint the bullies, but liberals actually care about governance, and prefer to have fact-based policies enacted through measured democratic processes, not venal, corrupt instinct imposed through dictatorial executive orders – which are then summarily dismissed by every court concerned with the rule of law, as they should be. Republicans control both houses of Congress (you know, the place that was smeared with actual feces by a republican rabble on January 6th 2020), and yet they have virtually given up on trying to pass any thoughtful legislation, instead trying to ram through the mother of all pork bills in one corrupt, constipated push. Meanwhile, republican congresspeople are shitting themselves trying not to enrage the big orange baby in the White House. There's shit everywhere in republican politics: figuratively and literally.

No, if there is a perception of any sadness on the part of liberals, it's because we despair seeing the house we all have spent centuries building being smeared with shit and then burned down by arsonist billionaires and teenage hacker bros. We loathe watching republican-appointed nincompoops flushing the economy down the toilet by inciting pointless trade wars, tanking the stock market, stoking inflation, and exploding the budget deficit. We cringe as President Bone Spurs insists on a wholly undeserved military parade to stroke his bloated ego, and then illegally deploys military forces to quell garden variety public dissent, like the tin pot wannabe dictator he is – proving conclusively that he is really not fit to be trusted with the keys to our nuclear arsenal.

And what is truly sad here is that republicans by and large still support the whopper of a lie that is "trickle down economics" (still waiting on that "trickle down" to materialize, 90 years later...). They cravenly subscribe to the cynical, unempathetic prosperity gospel, caring little for the actual lives of their fellow humans. If only they would do their homework and actually look up who last reduced the deficit, perhaps they'll understand why the fakery of supposed "fiscal conservatism" makes liberals so exasperated, as it saddles future generations with crippling debt. If only they would look up how many people are dependent on Medicaid and Medicare in their home states, and tried to feel at least a smidge of empathy for concerns about those lifesaving programs being decimated in order to enrich the already wildly wealthy. 

In the meantime, I deeply wish they'd save their bullying antics – they are deeply unbecoming of anyone above kindergarten age, and they don't benefit the nation as a whole in any way, shape or form. If republicans would call themselves patriots (as they do), I wish they would at least TRY to build the country up, not tear it down – and try to realize that this country consists of millions and millions of people who are simply different from them. "Owning" others is not what any thoughtful, intelligent person strives to do. It only amounts to what that mob did at the Capitol: smearing shit everywhere. 

We all have to live in the stink, so please stop.

Getting mighty sick and tired of hearing Democrats harping on about how they "have to speak to working class voters", and that the problem is supposedly that Democrats aren't messaging workers effectively enough. This is old hat - old enough that it's all that most voters have ever heard.

The problem isn't one of messaging, it is DELIVERING on the message. Voters spoke quite clearly in the last election: they don't believe the Dem fancy talk. (Why they instead chose to believe the con artistry of MAGA is another issue). Biden's economy was great for the stock market, but it didn't do much to curb inflation, or cut prices for common people. Didn't make a dent in the debt levels of most families.

I wish Dems would stop obsessing about messaging: they need to finally realize that the messaging isn't believed. Voters don't think Dems can deliver on it. More talk, or cleverer talk, isn't the solution. It seems pretty clear that voters are fed up with politicians who are all talk, so: time for less talk, and more action. 

For all the bottomless awfulness of Trump, he sure seems hell bent on action over talk – why else is he circumventing a Congress he has full control over, and instead prefers to issue executive orders? Meanwhile, Congress is entirely impotent to check him.

The contrast seems pretty clear. Democrats are all about lofty talk (case in point: Corey Booker's pointless 25h performative stunt). By contrast, Republicans are all about corrupt, destructive action (case in point: Project 2025, which clearly isn't about improving anyone's life). 

Neither of these approaches benefit the working and middle classes. If Dems truly want to improve ordinary people's lives, they need to step up to the plate and MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.

We need to:

a) Ride out the current constitutional turmoil, preventing it from doing too much damage.

b) Undo and repair as much of the damage as possible as quickly as it can be democratically done.

c) Ensure that this S-H-I-T never happens again.

a) is difficult when one branch of government (the legislative) has ceded its authority almost entirely, and another (the judicial) has no reliable enforcement mechanism, and its authority to interpret the law is under assault – even from its own highest level.

b) is a tall order and will take a LONG time, probably several administrations' worth. It also assumes no more bad faith actors are voted into power. That's a BIG assumption, especially when a large part of the population is in the clutches of organized propaganda and conspiracy madness. Where is the cure for that?

c) is perhaps the biggest challenge of all. The current administration have pushed the tolerable boundaries so far entirely without consequences, it's difficult to even imagine what a proportionate deterrant would be. Not even sure jail would do it, and that is looking way out of reach anyway. Yes, voters could perhaps ultimately show how they feel about all this, but that is not a given, and is hardly a deterrant when voters first showed their (unconscionable) approval of it. Can't undo that. Politicians everywhere have already taken notice, learned how to push through, and refused to accept consequences of bad, unconstitutional behavior.

The U.S. political system is so broken, it makes me want to pull my hair out in abject frustration. 

How does it serve the people to have 48.3% of voters represented by a Congress who are able to do absolutely nothing meaningful to act in the best interests of their constituents? 

How is it a sign of a  healthy, productive political system that the best (?) a representative can do for his constituents is to stand and ramble on the floor for 25 hours, in a performative and wholly symbolical stunt that is so eminently easily ignored? 

I mean, WHO CARES? 

It feels absolutely limp and useless, and not a good use of taxpayer money, or voter confidence. Surely there must be a way to better and more productively reward voters for their patience and support, as weak as that may be...? And if there isn't, why not? Why are almost half of elected representatives reduced to being spectators as the country is being ripped to pieces by saboteurs and political arsonists? Why do half of voters have no real agency in this system? Whose interests does this serve...? 

If American voters take this 25-hour stunt and accept it as "the best an opposition politician can do", then they are being cheated, and not getting their money's worth. And the country is being made all the worse for it, regardless of political affiliation.

If we listen to Trump cultists right now – and even some congressional Republicans – they seem to suggest we should abandon democracy altogether. Only, they are not being very specific about what the replacement will look like, just that it will involve an authoritarian leader with near-unchecked power.

While debating the ins-and-outs of democracy can be meaningful, it is sure to be less so if using the United States as a starting point. In short, I think it is a mistake to project the current problems of this nation on the concept of democracy and its principles, because the U.S. is not a democracy. The nation was not founded as such in any real sense, and it has constantly moved further and further away from such a state of governance.  Not even a civil war fought to abolish slavery led to any actual expansion of democracy – half the country just ignored the outcome of the war and continued on much as before. This poses the natural question: how, then, does true democracy happen in the United States, when all attempts at increased equality across boundaries of gender, class, ethnicity and sexual orientation are rejected by a predominantly male, white supremacist constituency, hell bent on preserving its ill-gotten hegemony – one that has been holding the country back since its founding?

Sure, Americans do have the right to vote, but their voices are distorted and weakened in a variety of deeply undemocratic ways. What ought to be a healthy political plurality, where productive and democratic compromises are possible, has been ground down into a trench war between two binary polarities, whose cartel-like behaviors are mirroring end-stage capitalism, destructively counteracting each other for the sole and craven purpose of preserving power.  The proportionate interests and needs of voters do not even seem to matter. Only 2% of Americans support Russia in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and yet, our foreign policy seems to directly serve the wishes of Vladimir Putin.

On that note, we are now under the heel of an administration that, once installed, has completely ceased pretending to serve the people. They seem to be completely set on destruction: to tear down everything they don't like, instead of trying to build something new. This borders on nihilism and is deeply dysfunctional. The extreme right wing wants to sabotage "The Administrative State" (even if this lacks explicit support from voters), and what do they propose replacing it with?  The answer is: Nothing.  They want to disassemble the federal state and cut down its budget, but have no other objectives but to distribute the savings as tax relief – mainly for those who least need it. And in order to achieve this, the nation inevitably digs itself ever deeper into debilitating debt.

This is Ayn Rand's libertarian wet dream: a dog-eat-dog society where the most aggressive and/or already privileged can claim everything of value, and where the rest are too weakened and empoverished to do anything about it. It reeks of pure dystopia, and it certainly has nothing to do with democracy, because what is going on right now does not serve the interests of any common voter.  The only explanation as to how this has happened at all is that we've been subjected to advanced, systemic fraud, and now all remaining defense mechanisms against continued fraud are being hollowed out even further, on just about every level. Only the judiciary still holds, but appears very fragile indeed. Thus, the United States marches rapidly towards a status as a "Failed State" (similar to Russia), where corruption is the operative mode of "governance", and the people have no real means through which to affect change. 

What is particularly frightening is that all this shocking lack of democratic integrity has been hidden in the Constitution all this time, yet Americans have imagined that their society has in some way been immune to such total destruction. As it turns out, everything that was needed to enable this systemic collapse was a "leader" entirely without morals, who challenged all perceived norms of governance, and ruthlessly exploited the almost total lack of structural defense of fundamental democratic principles. 

We can now see that The Constitution has always been a house of cards. When exposed to a wolf who huffs and puffs vigorously enough, it turns out there really never was much integrity supporting all those fancy words that used to make Americans so convinced of their own exceptionalism. This supreme arrogance has now led to near-wholesale collapse, making one question how this did not happen sooner, because the destruction has appeared shockingly easy to achieve. It was presented to the public under the guise of "Project 2025", and the public did not reject it.

Even if one might dare hope for a change, subsequent administrations will have a very deep hole to dig themselves out of.  The question is whether it will even be possible to repair all the damage done, knowing that obstruction is basically the natural state of Congress, and seeing how half of our elected representatives have been quite keen to assist in the destruction. 

Similar actors in history – Vidkun Quisling, Oswald Mosley, Benedict Arnold – failed in their destructive intent because they were relatively isolated. That is sadly not the case with our current batch of societal arsonists, even though we must hope that they, too, will face a reckoning one day.

Just watched a very interesting video where Sam Harris discusses "Trump, Ukraine and the Future of Geopolitics" with Niall Ferguson. It left me rather shaken up and concerned for the health and rationality of our political discourse. I had initially sought out this video for the exact opposite reason – to assuage my concerns.

I am quite familiar with Sam Harris and his approach to dissecting these issues, and I find his rational, fact-based approach quite comforting. He is adept at articulating the essence of a quandary, and then methodically picking it apart to arrive at conclusions that, for the most part, seem irrefutable and sane, or at least offering justifiable biases. He strikes me as someone who applies a robust and reasoned intellectual process to any debate.

I am not as familiar with Niall Ferguson, other than that what I have read of his musings strikes me as overly abstract, and removed from consequences that are of concern to most normal people. He seems a little too comfortable removing himself from the ground perspective, and a little too indulgent when it comes to speculating about theoretical possibilities, rather than analyzing things at face value. And yet, in the video referenced above, Ferguson advocates for "realism" as opposed to "idealism" (on a broader political scale). His brand of "realism", however, appears to be missing actual considerations of real, immediate consequences, and what they say about our actions in the longer term. That makes me feel like Ferguson has hidden ideological grounds for his arguments. Harris, by comparison, is honest and clear about his leanings. He is willing to analyze them, and does so very methodically in away that signals open-mindedness. Ferguson's reasoning, on the other hand, I find broadly deflective and more than a little bit arrogant, bordering on nihilism but at least proof of a certain lack of empathy. I end up wondering if he wants to do away with the concept of morality entirely.

Let me explain:

In discussing Trump's second term, and mainly focusing on Ukraine and the shifting foreign policy of Donald Trump, Harris outlines a wide set of (broadly recognized) problematic decisions and actions, and seeks to find explanations for them. Ferguson responds in a way I can only describe as Trump apologetic, to an extent that seems to require rather a lot of mental gymnastics. There are so very many possible reasons for the aforementioned decisions and actions and not only does Ferguson dispute that they are problematic, he goes out of his way to explain them as productive and justifiable. Which is fine if there were no other possible explanations than the actions being deliberate and benign, but he completely glosses over the alternatives in a way that suggests a willingness to engage in obfuscation. An honest analyst acting in good faith would consider all the possible explanations and discount only the ones that can be dismissed on empirical grounds. Instead, Ferguson twists himself into a pretzel to justify Trump's actions in a way that would make him a perfect choice for press-secretary for the current White House administration.

Let's first summarize the problem, and then look at these possible explanations:

Problem: Trump has abandoned Ukraine, called its president a dictator, claimed that Ukraine started the war, antagonized our allies, threatened the dismantling of NATO, threatened to annex Canada and to occupy Panama and Greenland, reversed decades of foreign policy, given Russia the upper hand in negotiations without demanding any concessions whatsoever from Vladimir Putin, thereby basically upending the existing world order. 

Possible Explanations:

1. Trump knows what he is doing, and has a plan (even though such a plan has not been articulated coherently, despite that basically being Trump's job). This is essentially Ferguson's foregone conclusion, and he goes to quite some lengths to twist the facts and his own subjective geopolitical projections to fit with this narrative, despite the fact that there is very little evidence to prove this – which Ferguson himself acknowledges; he basically says "whoever lives will see". So, it is sheer speculation on Ferguson's part, and rests on a long line of questionable assumptions. In addition, even if Trump does have a plan, there is no guarantee that plan would be successful (an outcome Ferguson seems to assume, almost to the point of it being an inevitability), and there is a LOT at stake. As one example, Ferguson mentions China's position in the tenuous power balance of the world, and hints at a perilous future for Taiwan. In doing so, he seems concerned about Taiwan more than Ukraine, for no stated reason. He also fails to acknowledge that if the West let's Putin get away with literal murder in Ukraine, it sends a message to Xi Jinping that he's free to do the same in Taiwan. It's exceedingly hard to understand this reasoning.
   ---
   This explanation might have been fine if no other possible explanations existed, but given the risks involved, to simply "wait and see" seems more than a little careless. The key imperative when it comes to Donald Trump's leadership has always been that he needs to be reined in, to which many of his past associates have attested quite emphatically.
   ---

2. Trump is immoral. Trump has reneged on a long-standing agreement with Ukraine and betrayed an ally in desperate need, despite that ally holding up their end of the bargain (relinquishing their nuclear arsenal in return for protection). Trump is well known for this type of immorality in his past business dealings, so we have no reason to doubt this explanation. Conservative voters don't even bother trying to excuse it, they just say "Let Trump be Trump".
   ---
   Ferguson does not deny Trump's immorality, but dismisses it as irrelevant, arguing that in matters of global power struggles, morality is a luxury we cannot afford. My question is: do we really want our elected representatives to commit immoral deeds in our names...? Should we at least not be allowed to have a say in that? I don't recall immorality being on the ballot in the 2024 election, and Ferguson seems to have zero interest in the consideration of democracy. If Trump wants to be immoral, Ferguson seems to think that U.S. foreign policy should be the same. That is authoritarianism taken to extremes.
   ---

3. Trump is incompetent. There is plenty of evidence that this is true. Trump gets a lot of things wrong. He implements tariffs that tank the stock market, and keeps claiming that they are paid by foreign powers. He's tried to base a peace deal on Ukraine cutting the US in on their mineral resources, even though very little is known about how abundant or valuable those resources really are. Trump claimed whoever signed the latest trade agreement with Canada is an idiot. HE was the one who signed it. He's claimed that the US has sent more money to Ukraine than the EU, which is untrue but Trump seems oblivious to this. Trump's handling of the COVID pandemic can only be described as catastrophically inept, and he even suggested people should inject bleach as a cure. Trump has also flip-flopped quite dramatically on many issues: when pressed, he claimed he had never said that Zelenskyy is a dictator, even though this is easily provable and the lie becomes evidence of further incompetence. Also, claiming that Ukraine started the war (which Trump did indeed say) could very well be a result of straight-up incompetence, for which noone owes Trump any excuses.
   ---
   This explanation needs to be taken seriously, and Trump's incompetence mitigated, given the high-stakes global situation. Ferguson ignores it entirely.
   ---

4. Trump is destructive and reckless. There is, similarly, quite a lot of evidence that this is also true. Trump, and many of his allies, have repeatedly stated that they seek to destroy government in its current form – it was a prominent part of the Project 2025 agenda, which Trump's administration is now implementing. Trump has appointed objectively unqualified candiates to a number of positions in what most closely resembles kakistocracy, his candidates in many cases bisarrely signalling a desire to destroy the agencies they have been appointed to lead.
   ---
   This needs to be taken seriously as well, since the consequences would be very dire, and quite expensive to rectify. But Ferguson doesn't even consider this as a possible explanation.
   ---

5. Trump is deranged. While conservatives tend to laugh this off, many psychiatrists have attested to Trump's evident malignant narcissist personality disorder, and it is no stretch to say he suffers from delusions of grandeur, as he tends to inflate the results of his actions by an order of magnitude as a matter of course, and also take credit for things he's had no hand in.
   ---
   This is objectively not a condition we want to see in people who make decisions about the future of our planet, but Ferguson doesn't even mention it – even though derangement in world leaders (some of whom Trump appear to admire) has been the cause of some of history's worst atrocities.
   ---

6. Trump is a liar. This we know to be absolutely, irrefutably true. Trump lies reflexively about all matters large and small, and it never even takes much of an effort to prove it. While this does not give an explanation for his decisions in the context of Ukraine, it nevertheless means we cannot be certain what Trump's motives actually are, even if we foolishly believe that they are benevolent.
   ---
   Ferguson argues from the apparent position that Trump's motives are clear and honest, and that there is no reason to expect deceit. This flies in the face of the very abundant evidence to the contrary, and it seems utterly dumb to take a serial liar and business cheat at his word, or even to assume he means well. If that were the case, why the subterfuge?
   ---

7. Trump is transactional and corrupt. Again, there is plenty of evidence to support this explanation, and while this doesn't necessarily mean all outcomes are bad for everyone, it at least means we have to question Trump's motives in a broader sense. Does he really want peace, is he concerned with the future of America, or is he merely looking to enrich himself?  Such motives do not guarantee the best possible outcome for all, or even most parties.
   ---
   As with the morality explanation, Ferguson does not seem to care about this as a possible scenario. I fail to see the benefits of having a leader who is self-dealing first, and considers the needs of the world and the people second (if at all).
   ---

8. Trump is a Russian asset. While this may seem sensationalist at first glance, and is extraordinarily difficult to conclusively prove, it is actually not without supporting evidence. The Mueller Report established that Russia did interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. While it failed to prove Trump's active collusion, there are now credible Russian reports that state this to be a fact, and Trump's own actions also closely align with this possible explanation. We are way past the point where this can be dismissed as something entirely out of the question, and with each of Trump's actions, this explanation becomes more and more credible. The real question is if it really matters whether Trump is or isn't a Russian asset, if his every action is no different compared to if he had been.
   ---
   I wonder why Ferguson never even addresses this concern. Even if unlikely, the mere possibility, and the potential consequences, are so serious that it warrants – almost demands – closer examination.
   ---

So, let's be real here. There are many possible explanations for Trump's behavior, and very few of them are benign. More importantly, no positive explanations are provable at this point. Trumps own words are not proof of anything (see #6 above). Most of the explanations offered above (possibly even the sole positive explanation) would lead to destabilizing outcomes for the entire world, and are desperately in need of those famed "checks-and-balances" that Americans pride themselves of, but which have been disastrously absent so far. 

Conservatives urgently need to stop deflecting and stop projecting increasingly far-fetched positive motives onto obviously negative actions. 

Such projections fly in the face of observable reality.

There are (at least) three good things about immigration, the way I see it:

1. The world is being overpopulated, and it seems impossible to stop it. As populations overflow in our native countries, it is folly to think that we can isolate ourselves, and never be subjected to cultural mixing. It is inevitable, and agreeing with people from other cultures may become a necessary thing for our survival as a species. If we do this right, and make integration a smoother process, then immigration prepares us for the inevitability of co-existence. And, conversely, closing our borders and demonizing "the other" only leads to the inevitable ramping up of conflicts.

2. People generally seek to immigrate to improve their prospects. That means immigrants are often people who seek to better their lives, and in doing so, they provide an engine of societal and economic growth. This is good for any nation.

3. Immigrants (and especially refugees) often come from countries where they've experienced hardships, oppression, or a combination of both. That means they are far less complacent than natural born citizens, who tend to take things for granted, and immigrants can therefore act as "canaries in the coalmine" when it comes to alerting us to things that are abnormal. If you've lived through fascist oppression, you are far less likely to roll over and tolerate it in your new home country. If you never lived during the troubled times before a polio vaccine, maybe you don't think it's such a big deal when it's taken away.

The United States finds itself locked in a perpetual tug-of-war between polarized political perspectives. Some suggest that trying to see both sides is the solution to this deadlock, but I believe acknowledging both sides of the political divide can actually be a recipe for even more inertia, which is the real problem. Why? Because these two opposites are not accurate, democratic reflections of the will of the people. They represent artificial choices, and trying to use them as benchmarks of truth is inherently problematic.

One might think the polarization means the opposite ends of the political divide are the respective endpoints of this dilemma, but I believe the absolute perspective, and the both-sides perspective, are the real polar opposites here, and the truth can be found in neither. The truth usually DOES have a bias – in fact, you could argue that truth is nothing but authenticated bias. The truth CAN be ascertained, and it can usually be found in the grayscale nuances between 100% certainty and the neither-this-nor-that (i.e., 50/50). But failing to establish the truth, however complex, means abdicating to simplistic strong-man arguments.

In this post-truth era of deliberate obfuscation, we are fooled into thinking that the truth cannot be navigated, and that the choice is to either unproductively both-sides everything, or accept some sort of forced and distorted absolute (often within ideological bubbles), based on whoever is in power at the current moment. Neither approach is meaningful.

The point is, there IS a difference between (for instance) 49% vs. 47% votes for two political candidates (which is emphatically NOT an absolute, or an ironclad mandate), and (for instance) 81% support for an invaded country vs. the invader. There is no need to categorize this as a black-and-white absolute, but when the situation requires a decision, the decision really should be a lot more clear-cut in the 81% example. And right now, that arbitration is entirely warped in favor of binary authoritarian overreach. That simply cannot stand; we should all object to it. Whereas in the 49% / 47% example (where equitability is pretty much the only mandate), we should demand nuance and compromise. A compromise that is nowhere in sight, and where polarization is really hurting us. If there are no absolutes, then how do you justify disenfranchising 47% of voters...? No wonder participation in democracy is so low.

But the issue really isn't in the abstract difference between absence of bias vs. absolutes. Regardless of whether nuance or absolutism applies, a decision and some sort of action is typically required. Very rarely do we have the luxury of sitting back and accepting a stale-mate, and even inaction leads to an outcome of some sort (which can often be undesired, or at least unmitigated). Too often, both-sidesing an argument leads to no decision, and no action. We've seen it very clearly in the case of gun violence, even after entire school classes of children are slaughtered – something no society should accept.

The inertia and inaction are the real problems, of which we have many. The point is that none of them are being constructively addressed, as long as we're stuck trying to navigate artificially polarized binaries (evident from the current congressional dysfunction). Administration X enacts a policy, Administration Y rips it up. Back-and-forth it goes, like a perpetual, linear tug-of-war, when what we we really need is zig-zagging forward motion. In the current scenario, it really doesn't matter if we "see both sides", since we end up bouncing back and forth between them, like the parable of the donkey with the two stacks of hay. We need to agree that certain things have been democratically settled and move on, not relitigate the past in what inevitably ends up being a regressive outcome. 

The French 18th century essayist Joseph Joubert coined the following rather salient quote: "The aim of argument (...) should not be victory but progress."

Progress is the goal.

So, to summarize, where there now ought to be clarity and agreement, there is none. And where there ought to be nuance and compromise, those are also nowhere to be found. Instead, we get lies, propaganda and deflection, and end up in a never-ending tug-of-war between undemocratic opposites. These are the dire straits we're in currently, and it's hindering us from actually solving problems.

Recommended reading: "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris. Just because figuring things out can be hard, we shouldn't stop trying.

It's befuddling to watch the party of small government do a 180 and suddenly cravenly and shamefully support an administration who is trying to vastly (and often illegally/unconstitutionally) expand the powers of the executive branch, removing any congressional checks on the reach of the federal government. 

It's mind-boggling to see the supposed party of "law-and-order" trample over constitutional rules left and right, subvert the FBI into a retaliatory thought police, and claim with a straight face that courts should have no say in how the law is interpreted.

It's eye-opening to observe the party of lowered taxes get in line behind destructive tariffs, and support a mafia-like extortion racket in regards to federal aid to disaster-stricken regions.

It's disturbing to see the party of supposed "fiscal conservatism" throw in with unmitigated corruption and oligarchic rule. Don't really see how it could be fiscally conservative to let billionaires bleed the country dry, nor does it seem compatible with the notion of a free market. Call it what it is: corruption, and socialism for the wealthy. 

It's shocking to see how eagerly these supposedly "freedom-loving" laissez-faire ideologues suddenly jump on board with restricting rights and freedoms: religious freedom, states' rights, bodily autonomy, the right to assemble, the right to love whomever you want, and the right to read whatever you want.

All in servitude to a narcissistic megalomaniac with a huge ego and an even larger lust for power. 

It makes you wonder: how many times can republicans twist themselves into pretzels, trying to justify the unjustifiable, before they snap? All this apparent amoeba-like ideological fluidity (also known as: lack of a spine) just goes to show that they were never really serious about these supposedly sacred conservative principles. Oligarchy and authoritarianism were always the end goal.

This is a real problem, because even in a faux democracy like the U.S., where power bounces back and forth between two polar opposites, there is ultimately no choice at all if one side veers towards autocracy – regardless of who wins out in the end. 

American democracy depends on two viable options.

Liberal mythology gets two things wrong, and I think that is why they have such a spotty track record in elections (beyond presidential elections and even congressional elections, but all the way downballot):

1. Working class and middle class people are being fooled into voting against their own interests. (Not true)

2. The Democratic party is a champion for the working class. (Not entirely true)

On #1, I think we have to conclude at this point that this message is not getting across, and may not actually be accurate. I think a substantial number of working and middle class voters subscribe to the prosperity gospel, and think rich people DESERVE to be rich. In addition, this serves as a misguided goal for the less fortunate: that they, too, can become rich, and when they do, they will also have deserved it. In essence, a twisted version of the American Dream that people choose to cling to.

On #2, voters clearly aren't buying it. In part, I think it's because:

a) There are simply too many liberal politicians who are equally corrupt, and simply pretend to follow liberal dogma. They are deep in the pocket of moneyed interests, just as much as conservatives are (case in point: Rod Blagojevich and Bob Menendez, to name but a few). 

And:

b) Even if there are plenty of Democrats who DO try to fight for the common people (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, Jamie Raskin, Katie Porter, etc), they have simply been way too ineffective, and voters seem to not believe their promises anymore. Voting for them has simply not worked. Sure, that may in part be because of conservative obstruction, but to voters, the result is the same regardless of the cause. 

And when liberals play identity politics (as they are wont to do, for better or worse), it simply reinforces this view, that the broad majority aren't their main priority.

Let's try to be a little bit rational here. 

If you think there's too much bias in news reporting (which is not necessarily untrue), the way to address that is not to kick out some highly selective media outlets in favor of other, even more biased ones, only biased from the other direction. 

(Observant readers will realize this is in response to what Trump's stooge Hegseth has begun doing at the Pentagon, ensuring enough weakening of the coverage of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower, another conservative president, must surely be spinning in his grave). 

Let's call a spade a spade: swapping one bias for another is the move of a propagandist, who wants to ensure a specific type of (favorable) bias – not the move of one who wants to ensure fairness. 

I've never bought the notion that we cannot tell what is true and what is false. For instance, I don't believe that MSNBC is somehow equal in partisanship to Fox. In fact, I can tell you from extensive comparisons that they are most emphatically not. 

Fox's hosts are ideological bad faith actors - Brian Kilmeade, Sean Hannity, Maria Bartiromo, Bret Baier etc. They actively peddle propaganda and ideological subterfuge, knowingly spreading conspiracy theories and lies, whereas MSNBC by comparison - with objectively more educated and reasoned hosts like Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Hayes and Stephanie Ruhle - merely have a political slant to their reporting. We can decry that slant, but we cannot pretend it is the same as lying.

There WAS cricitism of the Biden administration on MSNBC, but I never found any but the mildest of criticism of Trump on Fox. I have not found more than a fraction of MSNBC's reporting to be factually incorrect (only selective), whereas the fallacies abound on Fox, to the extent that they (as the only network) had to settle a massive lawsuit, and agree publically that they were not actually a news outlet but an "entertainment network", professing that their former liar-in-chief, Tucker Carlson, was essentially a comedian whose proclamations should not be taken seriously. 

There is a difference, seriously, and we should not equate them with each other.

What we have to remember is, what is considered "left" and "right" in the U.S. is wildly different compared to the rest of the world. "Left" should be considered "slightly left of center", and "Right" is at this point what used to be the fringe extremist right. What was called the "Tea Party Right" is now at the very heart of conservatism in the US. The balance was always skewed, but it has shifted quite considerably.

To prove that truth CAN be found if one only examines things closely, let's compare the MSNBC and FOX hosts' credentials objectively:

Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): Multiple Emmy Awards; Grammy Award; Bachelor's Degree in public policy (Stanford); Doctorate in political science (Oxford).

Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC): Aide to U.S. Senator, staff director for Senate Finance Committee. Bachelor's Degree in Economics (Harvard); Writer and producer for The West Wing; executive producer at NBC.

Chris Hayes (MSNBC): Bachelor in Philosophy (Brown), Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, editor of The Nation; adjunct professor (St. Augustine), Bernard L. Schwartz fellow at New America Foundation.

Stephaniel Ruhle (MSNBC): Bachelor's Degree in International Business (Lehigh); VP of Credit Suisse; Managing Director at Deutsche Bank; Managing Editor and anchor, Bloomberg TV; editor for Bloomberg News.

---

Brian Kilmeade (FOX): Bachelor's Degree in Communications (Long Island); Anchor, host and feature reporter for various minor networks; 10 years' experience as a stand-up comedian. ELECTION DENIER.

Sean Hannity (FOX): General construction contractor; volunteer talk show host. No complete education. ELECTION DENIER.

Maria Bartiromo (FOX): Bachelor's Degree in Journalism (NYU); Producer at CNN, two Emmy awards; New York Stock Exchange reporter. ELECTION DENIER.

Bret Baier (FOX): Bachelor of Political Science (DePauw); local stations WJWJ and WRAL-TV reporter, Fox Atlanta bureau chief; Fox Pentagon Correspondent. ELECTION DENIER.

So, let's compare.
MSNBC: Stanford, Oxford, Harvard, Brown, Lehigh.
FOX: Long Island, none, NYU, DePauw.

And because degrees and credentials don't necessarily capture the full picture, let's search for video clips on YouTube and pick the top one for each:

Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): https://youtu.be/2D2XAsS7TWg?si=vrKYeX9r-q5cF-j4 (reporting on presidential overreach in firing federal personnel) TRUTHFUL BUT BIASED

Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC): https://youtu.be/n4-iX8H7i9c?si=aJItySMpoebH9v_N (reporting on Musk's illegal seizing of Treasury data) TRUTHFUL BUT BIASED

Chris Hayes (MSNBC): https://youtu.be/4cnyv9qNQSI?si=MH1IwgxVcVDf9AMz (continuing the warnings of Project 2025, highlighting the dangers in the appointment of Heritage Foundation ideologue Russell Vought) TRUTHFUL BUT BIASED

Stephanie Ruhle (MSNBC): https://youtu.be/QPEeSW34uB4?si=BnrcOEjgjshwo5DJ (more warnings about Musk's access to the Treasury's payment systems) TRUTHFUL BUT BIASED

---

Brian Kilmeade (FOX): https://youtu.be/vF7aWwrzL9Q?si=SExN15CwOULBwRdz (voicing support for DOGE overreach, despite no formal legal authority, but at least leaving the analysis to an external expert) TRUTHFUL BUT BIASED

Sean Hannity (FOX): https://youtu.be/SLSUWFTVzU4?si=OFCe54wUCAwYYQpT (basically just acting as a mouthpiece for Trump, announcing a Trump decree by reading a tweet on air) SELECTIVE, PROPAGANDA

Maria Bartiromo (FOX): https://youtu.be/3kGgl5KDIW4?si=-xh__pisxHm5rGJ4 (essentially justifying Trump's China tariffs and dismissing concerns). TRUTHFUL BUT BIASED

Bret Baier (FOX): https://youtu.be/rVNbDxtHDVY?si=6Q9-HXHEYVaN6uTx (another near verbatim, favorable report on Trump rescinding Biden's security clearance) SELECTIVE, PROPAGANDA

So, as you can see, all the MSNBC hosts are reporting on ACTUAL illegalities and presidential overreaches, using analysis and expert testimony, whereas the FOX hosts are mostly echoing Trump executive orders and voicing support for them, offering very little analysis (with the exception of the Kilmeade clip). These two networks are NOT the same. One is a journalistic news network with a certain bias, the other is an outright propaganda machine which acts in complete subservience to the current president – and has been convicted of it in a court of law.

And this is a far bigger problem that it may seem. Independent reporters frequently decry the biases of "corporate mainstream media". They are not wrong, but the solution is not to abandon mass media. Far too many Americans get their information from mass media sources, and if we let those outlets succumb to unfairness, biases or outright lying, the general public inevitably get the perception that the truth cannot be ascertained. This only serves to stoke authoritarianism. 

So, mainstream media must be fixed. Our shared perception of the truth depends on it. There are plenty of individual reporters who are not subject to corporate direction, but they are very far from the mainstream media diet, and so the problem of widespread propaganda and untruth remains. 

What I think we need to focus on is how we can collectively discern the truth by subjecting the mainstream media outlets to closer scrutiny. If we all rely on individual, independent reporters, then far too many viewers will succumb to the Joe Rogan syndrome, and we elevate single, fallible and corruptible voices to positions of far too much power – often based on nothing but popularity. 

Networks are now following FOX down the rabbit hole of entertainment punditry and manufactured outrage (CNN, looking at you!), and that trend needs to be reversed. What society needs is mainstream mass media coverage that is subjected to scrutiny and regulation. Clickbait is the scourge of truth; when there is money involved, the truth quickly starts to become malleable. Money needs to be taken out of politics, but it also needs to be taken out of the media. 

The more people distrust the media, and the less we are able to agree on what is true and what is false, the more we become susceptible to infighting and authoritarianism. 

Where do we start? By reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and by banning clickbait algorithms in news reporting. Media outlets need to be held accountable for falsehoods, or they are not fulfilling their role in a functioning democracy.