As my wise mother cautioned me in the late 60s when I was protesting the Vietnam War, do not allow yourself to be a pawn especially for those who advocate violence - think for yourself - and remember changing the definition of a word empowers it. Those words ring today.
I can't let go of those ideals because they speak of a civilization that respects differences of opinions. Our country is unrecognizable! Because there are no repercussions for criminals, anti-semites, organized political hate, our country has lost definition. So called leaders lack common sense. Educators nurture bias. And the worst part is the "influencers" are the new rock stars to the youth.
And not surprisingly, they don't care that 35,000 Iranians protesters were murdered for their desire to live in a free society.
The problem is as you said, nothing is perceived with objectivity because the platform of the new undemocrat party is hate for our president.
Sarah, your comment on this essay reminds me of my son’s current college final paper on the individualism of the ’60s. Remember “Make Your Own Kind of Music” by Mama Cass? In two weeks he’ll graduate into a world where many of his peers believe they’re thinking for themselves yet are captive to the social media tribalism, moral inversion, and brain rot you so rightly describe.
I love how you’ve carried your mother’s “don’t be a pawn” ethos forward—it’s gold, and painfully relevant today. I obviously share your diagnosis of the problem.
My hope with this essay was to invite those afflicted with moral tribalism to try a different lens: one that lets us recover trust in our constitutional system, the best mechanism yet devised for resolving political disagreements after 250 years since the Declaration.
What if the most revolutionary act right now really is refusing to let “hate for the president” become the only lens—much like your mom’s words guided you through other turbulent times? I'm grateful for your readership and thoughtful conversation!
Thank you! If even one person begins to see the world differently because you shared the essay, we’ve moved the needle on keeping judgment instead of losing it. Grateful for readers like you who still believe ideas matter more than jerseys.
Thank you for this thoughtful blog! I very much appreciate Sarah's comments in this thread as well. Much of what you describe here is the so-called "Black Pill-ing" of Americans. And that destruction of our norms and our shared history is very dangerous and disheartening. It is akin to what the Marxists Leftists were doing by destroying statues, but this is coming from formerly(?) Right-Of-Center voices, like Tucker Carlson. And, whether it's genuine or just for the clicks, fomenting the "nothing is real" rhetoric causes me to be concerned with how that will show up in our next several election cycles.
Cheryl, thank you—especially coming from someone familiar with the persuasion work I do at Engage to Win!
You nailed the “Black Pill-ing” danger. In the middle of drafting this essay—which was meant to explore what “never normalize” has done to our judgment—the assassination attempt happened, forcing me to reframe the argument. That political violence is the extreme consequence of not normalizing—and worse, dehumanizing—political opponents actually sharpened my point. I share your concern about how this shows up in elections, which is why reaching persuadables feels so urgent.
That’s my hope: to help those wrestling with moral tribalism “think again” about the president and the stakes—not by demanding agreement, but by refusing to let hatred for one man become the only lens through which we view our constitutional system.
Your observation about formerly right-of-center voices is fair and uncomfortable—exactly the kind of honest reflection we need more of. I’m curious: do others in your orbit share your view of Tucker?
If you know people wrestling with Black Pill fatigue, I hope you’re pushing back, or at least sharing this essay! 😏
Sally, “Very true” from you carries extra weight. I’m not surprised, considering you and my mom drank the same Storm Lake water growing up — that small-town Iowa wisdom clearly runs deep! It means the world that you read and support my commentary. Grateful for you!
Leslie, appreciate the kind words and the flag emoji—reminds me why preserving the republic (not just one side’s win) is worth the effort. Grateful you’re here!
Sarah: this comment is partly for you. I had parents who listened to my brother and I in the 1950s. We did not experience “listening” in school or among friends. Today few students are interested in the art of debate. Thinking is obsolete as we rely on computers to do it.
Melanie: your ability to express necessary truths amazes me. Sharing them means you will get unkind flack.
Thank you for causing me to ask myself “why” more often. My answer to why does not mean I should believe it is right. Is just one idea; never something needing violent, harmful action. Harriet Zachary
Harriet, thank you — your words mean even more coming from my mother-in-law!
I hope you remember that 2015 Thanksgiving to which I referred in this essay. It was a remarkable one for me, for many reasons, including that two such intelligent, thoughtful women saw the world differently, helping me on my own “Think Again” journey.
Thank you for your readership and encouragement, for your continued thoughtful engagement in these comments — and for still causing me to ask “why” after all these years.
What do we do when the demands of one side require the disenfranchisement of the other side in order to be satisfied? I don’t believe this is a ‘both sides’ problem anymore.
Based on actual results, one side can no longer make credible claims that they can deliver prosperity for the majority of citizens. Instead they campaign on cult of personality, identity attributes, and a sort of secular self righteousness.
Many hate Trump because he harshly exposes the damage they do to the country and they have nothing positive to counter him with. So they resort to lying, tantrums, and inciting violence.
If they are so smart, why can’t they come up with something better to offer?
David, I really appreciate this and I understand the frustration behind it.
One thing I try to keep in mind is that a large share of Americans don’t live in either camp. They lean, but they’re not fully aligned, and they’re often the ones who decide elections.
They’re also the most exhausted by the dynamic you’re describing. When everything feels like a zero-sum fight, it becomes harder for them to see who is actually offering something that will improve their lives.
That’s why I focus on how ideas translate into real outcomes for people—what’s actually fair, compassionate, works in practice and will improve society. That’s what tends to resonate with the persuadable middle.
How do you think we make that case more effectively to these people?
How did this happen? How did it happen that (mostly) one side of the political spectrum came to view the other side as illegitimate? And how did it happen that the first side decided that the second side should be vanquished by any means necessary?
The answer is surely complicated and involves many factors, but I have a hunch that there's one particular factor that's important: Follow the money.
Democrat politicians are noticeably more radical than ordinary Democrats. I suspect that it's because they receive funding from radical sources. George Soros comes to mind, but there are hundreds of others who are not trying constructively to build America, but to destroy her in order to make a fundamentally changed America.
A real journalism profession would be investigating this. Instead, it seems they're burying it.
Glen, high praise. Thank you. And you're right that follow-the-money (and institutional incentives) explains a lot of the radicalization.
I just read your latest Substack post on Iran -- “Trump is winning the Iran negotiations” -- and I agree with every word. The way Trump flipped the Hormuz dynamic and closed their ATM is a master class in leverage. Your take is sharp, as always.
Back in 2016 -- when I was writing for the Aspen Times! -- I queried whether it would make America great again if each side didn’t live in fear of the other taking the White House. The stakes feel even greater now because constitutional guardrails have weakened. I'd hoped Trump’s election would strengthen them. I'm curious as to whether, as a lawyer, you think the Supreme Court is making some headway. I'm encouraged, though that development is now eliciting an unhealthy autoimmune response!
That’s part of what makes the current moment so dangerous and hopeful at the same time. When persuasion feels pointless and money fills the vacuum, we get the dehumanization cycle. The antidote is what you’re doing, calling it straight and focusing on outcomes over optics. So thanks!
Always appreciate your clear thinking. Looking forward to more!
Your “How?” question is the one I wrestle with. Follow-the-money is only part of it. Of course, a real journalism profession would investigate because it is their job. Also thanks to social media, we’ve replaced debate with demonization because it’s easier and apparently much more profitable. I think ordinary Americans are exhausted by all this, not to mention political violence. I appreciate your take probably because I found you through Melanie.
Again, you nailed it!
As my wise mother cautioned me in the late 60s when I was protesting the Vietnam War, do not allow yourself to be a pawn especially for those who advocate violence - think for yourself - and remember changing the definition of a word empowers it. Those words ring today.
I can't let go of those ideals because they speak of a civilization that respects differences of opinions. Our country is unrecognizable! Because there are no repercussions for criminals, anti-semites, organized political hate, our country has lost definition. So called leaders lack common sense. Educators nurture bias. And the worst part is the "influencers" are the new rock stars to the youth.
And not surprisingly, they don't care that 35,000 Iranians protesters were murdered for their desire to live in a free society.
The problem is as you said, nothing is perceived with objectivity because the platform of the new undemocrat party is hate for our president.
Sarah, your comment on this essay reminds me of my son’s current college final paper on the individualism of the ’60s. Remember “Make Your Own Kind of Music” by Mama Cass? In two weeks he’ll graduate into a world where many of his peers believe they’re thinking for themselves yet are captive to the social media tribalism, moral inversion, and brain rot you so rightly describe.
I love how you’ve carried your mother’s “don’t be a pawn” ethos forward—it’s gold, and painfully relevant today. I obviously share your diagnosis of the problem.
My hope with this essay was to invite those afflicted with moral tribalism to try a different lens: one that lets us recover trust in our constitutional system, the best mechanism yet devised for resolving political disagreements after 250 years since the Declaration.
What if the most revolutionary act right now really is refusing to let “hate for the president” become the only lens—much like your mom’s words guided you through other turbulent times? I'm grateful for your readership and thoughtful conversation!
Great article that EVERYONE should read!
Thank you! If even one person begins to see the world differently because you shared the essay, we’ve moved the needle on keeping judgment instead of losing it. Grateful for readers like you who still believe ideas matter more than jerseys.
Thank you for this thoughtful blog! I very much appreciate Sarah's comments in this thread as well. Much of what you describe here is the so-called "Black Pill-ing" of Americans. And that destruction of our norms and our shared history is very dangerous and disheartening. It is akin to what the Marxists Leftists were doing by destroying statues, but this is coming from formerly(?) Right-Of-Center voices, like Tucker Carlson. And, whether it's genuine or just for the clicks, fomenting the "nothing is real" rhetoric causes me to be concerned with how that will show up in our next several election cycles.
Cheryl, thank you—especially coming from someone familiar with the persuasion work I do at Engage to Win!
You nailed the “Black Pill-ing” danger. In the middle of drafting this essay—which was meant to explore what “never normalize” has done to our judgment—the assassination attempt happened, forcing me to reframe the argument. That political violence is the extreme consequence of not normalizing—and worse, dehumanizing—political opponents actually sharpened my point. I share your concern about how this shows up in elections, which is why reaching persuadables feels so urgent.
That’s my hope: to help those wrestling with moral tribalism “think again” about the president and the stakes—not by demanding agreement, but by refusing to let hatred for one man become the only lens through which we view our constitutional system.
Your observation about formerly right-of-center voices is fair and uncomfortable—exactly the kind of honest reflection we need more of. I’m curious: do others in your orbit share your view of Tucker?
If you know people wrestling with Black Pill fatigue, I hope you’re pushing back, or at least sharing this essay! 😏
Very true
Sally, “Very true” from you carries extra weight. I’m not surprised, considering you and my mom drank the same Storm Lake water growing up — that small-town Iowa wisdom clearly runs deep! It means the world that you read and support my commentary. Grateful for you!
Couldn't agree more about "small town wisdom," coming from one myself.
Excellent job!! 🇺🇸
Leslie, appreciate the kind words and the flag emoji—reminds me why preserving the republic (not just one side’s win) is worth the effort. Grateful you’re here!
Sarah: this comment is partly for you. I had parents who listened to my brother and I in the 1950s. We did not experience “listening” in school or among friends. Today few students are interested in the art of debate. Thinking is obsolete as we rely on computers to do it.
Melanie: your ability to express necessary truths amazes me. Sharing them means you will get unkind flack.
Thank you for causing me to ask myself “why” more often. My answer to why does not mean I should believe it is right. Is just one idea; never something needing violent, harmful action. Harriet Zachary
Harriet, thank you — your words mean even more coming from my mother-in-law!
I hope you remember that 2015 Thanksgiving to which I referred in this essay. It was a remarkable one for me, for many reasons, including that two such intelligent, thoughtful women saw the world differently, helping me on my own “Think Again” journey.
Thank you for your readership and encouragement, for your continued thoughtful engagement in these comments — and for still causing me to ask “why” after all these years.
What do we do when the demands of one side require the disenfranchisement of the other side in order to be satisfied? I don’t believe this is a ‘both sides’ problem anymore.
Based on actual results, one side can no longer make credible claims that they can deliver prosperity for the majority of citizens. Instead they campaign on cult of personality, identity attributes, and a sort of secular self righteousness.
Many hate Trump because he harshly exposes the damage they do to the country and they have nothing positive to counter him with. So they resort to lying, tantrums, and inciting violence.
If they are so smart, why can’t they come up with something better to offer?
David, I really appreciate this and I understand the frustration behind it.
One thing I try to keep in mind is that a large share of Americans don’t live in either camp. They lean, but they’re not fully aligned, and they’re often the ones who decide elections.
They’re also the most exhausted by the dynamic you’re describing. When everything feels like a zero-sum fight, it becomes harder for them to see who is actually offering something that will improve their lives.
That’s why I focus on how ideas translate into real outcomes for people—what’s actually fair, compassionate, works in practice and will improve society. That’s what tends to resonate with the persuadable middle.
How do you think we make that case more effectively to these people?
Very well stated, Melanie. One of your best!
Here's a follow up question: How?
How did this happen? How did it happen that (mostly) one side of the political spectrum came to view the other side as illegitimate? And how did it happen that the first side decided that the second side should be vanquished by any means necessary?
The answer is surely complicated and involves many factors, but I have a hunch that there's one particular factor that's important: Follow the money.
Democrat politicians are noticeably more radical than ordinary Democrats. I suspect that it's because they receive funding from radical sources. George Soros comes to mind, but there are hundreds of others who are not trying constructively to build America, but to destroy her in order to make a fundamentally changed America.
A real journalism profession would be investigating this. Instead, it seems they're burying it.
Glen, high praise. Thank you. And you're right that follow-the-money (and institutional incentives) explains a lot of the radicalization.
I just read your latest Substack post on Iran -- “Trump is winning the Iran negotiations” -- and I agree with every word. The way Trump flipped the Hormuz dynamic and closed their ATM is a master class in leverage. Your take is sharp, as always.
Back in 2016 -- when I was writing for the Aspen Times! -- I queried whether it would make America great again if each side didn’t live in fear of the other taking the White House. The stakes feel even greater now because constitutional guardrails have weakened. I'd hoped Trump’s election would strengthen them. I'm curious as to whether, as a lawyer, you think the Supreme Court is making some headway. I'm encouraged, though that development is now eliciting an unhealthy autoimmune response!
That’s part of what makes the current moment so dangerous and hopeful at the same time. When persuasion feels pointless and money fills the vacuum, we get the dehumanization cycle. The antidote is what you’re doing, calling it straight and focusing on outcomes over optics. So thanks!
Always appreciate your clear thinking. Looking forward to more!
Your “How?” question is the one I wrestle with. Follow-the-money is only part of it. Of course, a real journalism profession would investigate because it is their job. Also thanks to social media, we’ve replaced debate with demonization because it’s easier and apparently much more profitable. I think ordinary Americans are exhausted by all this, not to mention political violence. I appreciate your take probably because I found you through Melanie.