62% of Republicans and 54% of Democrats view the other party very unfavorably.

Trust in Government

In 1958, about three-quarters of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do what is right always or most of the time; in 1964 the figure was 77%.

In 1958, about three-quarters of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do what is right always or most of the time; in 1964 the figure was 77%. As of May 2024, it was 22% (Pew Research Center, drawing on the American National Election Studies and its own surveys).

The decline was not steady. Trust fell sharply through the late 1960s and 1970s, with the Vietnam War, Watergate and economic trouble, and rose for periods in the 1980s, late 1990s and briefly after September 11, 2001, before falling again.

Continue reading →

How Left Is The American Left…And Why Didn’t Socialism Catch On Here?

The video explores why socialism and a strong left-wing political movement have never fully taken root in the United States, especially compared to other Western countries like the UK and much of Europe. It begins by defining the American left primarily as the Democratic Party, which, despite popular belief, aligns more closely with center-right policies when compared internationally. This relative positioning arises because political labels like “left” and “right” are fluid and context-dependent rather than absolute. The video contrasts the American Democratic Party with parties in other countries, such as the British Labour Party and the Conservative Party, showing that policies considered left-wing or socialist in the U.S. are often mainstream or even center-right elsewhere.

The reasons behind the absence of a strong socialist movement in the U.S. are multifaceted. The American electoral system, characterized by first-past-the-post voting and the Electoral College, structurally inhibits third parties and reinforces a two-party system. The historical legacy of the Red Scare and anti-socialist propaganda has stigmatized leftist ideologies in American culture, associating them with un-American and even evil forces. Organizational weaknesses within American socialist movements also contributed to their lack of long-term success, as they struggled to unify support and survive in a hostile environment. Additionally, capitalism’s adaptability has constantly evolved to neutralize socialist challenges, making systemic change difficult.

Despite these challenges, the video ends on an optimistic note, encouraging viewers to believe that socialism can eventually flourish in the United States. It stresses the importance of education, activism, and resisting capitalist propaganda to prepare for a future when systemic change becomes possible, drawing inspiration from historical revolutions that seemed unlikely until they happened.

Read the full article →

Money and Campaigns

Running for office costs money: staff, advertising, travel, and getting out the vote.

Running for office costs money: staff, advertising, travel, and getting out the vote. How that money may be raised and spent has been shaped as much by court decisions as by Congress.

In 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the government may not ban independent political spending by corporations and unions. Later that year a federal appeals court decision, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, led to “super PACs”: committees that may raise unlimited amounts as long as they do not coordinate with a candidate.

Continue reading →

Why Politics Feels Like Two Different Maps

Politics now feels less like a disagreement over policies and more like two rival maps of danger, belonging, and trust.

Two televisions glow in two living rooms on the same night. On one screen, the debate sounds like a warning about disorder, borders, schools, and a country slipping away from people who built it. On the other, the same exchange sounds like a warning about cruelty, corruption, rights, and institutions bending toward the powerful. Both viewers hear danger. They simply hear it coming from different directions.

Politics has always contained conflict. The United States began with fierce arguments over power, money, rights, region, and the proper reach of government. What feels different now is the way political identity has absorbed so much else. Party labels no longer point only toward tax rates or regulatory preferences. They often suggest where someone lives, what media they trust, how they interpret history, what they fear, how they talk about religion, how they view expertise, and whether they feel the culture honors or mocks them.

The old map was never as tidy as nostalgia makes it sound. Parties contained strange coalitions. Local politics could scramble national categories. A union member, a churchgoing farmer, a suburban professional, and a civil rights organizer might share some priorities and clash on others. People still argued bitterly, but many Americans encountered political difference in workplaces, churches, neighborhoods, extended families, and local institutions that forced some daily contact.

Over time, those mixing rooms thinned. Americans sorted by education, geography, profession, and culture. Media multiplied into separate weather systems. National politics reached into school boards, coffee shops, sports, movies, masks, bathrooms, textbooks, climate, policing, and holiday tables. A person could build a full information diet in which the other side appeared mostly as a threat. The map became easier to read and less accurate.

A political map does more than show positions. It tells people where danger lives. For some Americans, danger looks like distant bureaucracies making rules for communities they do not understand. For others, danger looks like private power, discrimination, or local majorities using freedom as a shield for exclusion. For some, institutions feel captured by elites. For others, institutions feel like the only barrier between vulnerable people and raw power. Each map highlights a real risk and hides another.

That is why fact-checking alone often disappoints. A correction may fix a sentence while leaving the map intact. If a voter believes a party threatens the nation’s moral order, one corrected statistic will not calm the fear. If another voter believes the opposing party threatens democracy or equal rights, one nuanced policy detail will not erase the warning. People do not merely collect facts. They place facts inside a story about who can be trusted.

Understanding politics requires asking what kind of claim someone is making. Some claims describe law: what a bill does, what a court ruled, what an agency can enforce. Some describe identity: who counts, who belongs, who gets respect. Some describe fear: what might be lost if the wrong people gain power. Some describe loyalty: which side is presumed guilty before the evidence appears. Confusing those categories turns every argument into fog.

The work gets harder because the maps reward themselves. A person who believes the media lies will treat contrary reporting as proof of the lie. A person who believes the other side acts in bad faith will interpret compromise as a trap. A person who feels despised may choose leaders who make their anger visible, even if those leaders solve little. A person who feels endangered may accept institutional shortcuts that later endanger someone else.

None of this means citizens should float above politics as if every argument were equal. Some claims are false. Some policies harm people. Some leaders exploit fear. But a citizen who wants to persuade, organize, or govern has to know the terrain. You cannot guide someone off a map you refuse to look at.

Before sharing the next political claim, pause long enough to label it. Is it about a rule, a fear, a status injury, a material problem, or a group loyalty test? Then ask what evidence would change the claim if it were wrong. A democracy cannot require everyone to use the same map. It can require citizens to notice when the map has become more powerful than the ground beneath their feet.

The public question behind Understanding Politics is not merely whether people feel strongly about the issue. They do. The better question is where the pressure enters ordinary life and which institution has the power to relieve or worsen it. In Why Politics Feels Like Two Different Maps, that pressure appears through a scene rather than a slogan because civic problems become clearest when someone has to make a decision with imperfect choices.

A reader can use the same lens locally. Look for the office, employer, market rule, public habit, or private contract that narrows the available options. Then ask who benefits from the present arrangement, who absorbs the risk, and what information remains hidden from the person making the hardest choice. That question turns Understanding Politics from an argument about attitude into an inquiry about design.

The historical lens format matters in Why Politics Feels Like Two Different Maps because it keeps the focus on cause and consequence. A purely moral argument might produce applause, but it rarely shows where repair begins. A purely technical argument may identify a lever and forget the person standing next to it. The best public writing has to do both: preserve the human stakes and clarify the machinery that shapes them.

In Why Politics Feels Like Two Different Maps, that machinery usually contains tradeoffs. Better rules can create costs. Faster help can require better verification. More local control can protect community voice or preserve exclusion. More market freedom can encourage innovation or deepen imbalance. The useful move is not to pretend tradeoffs disappear. It is to name them early enough that citizens can decide which burden belongs where.

The practical invitation is to carry one sharper question into the next conversation about Understanding Politics: what would have to change for the person in this story to have a real option, not just a different form of pressure? The answer may be a policy, a habit, a public record, a workplace rule, a local meeting, or a better-designed doorway. Whatever the tool, the first step is locating the point where life and power meet.

Read the full article →