Most major policy changes create some degree of short-term disruption, and some groups may bear more of the cost than others. A difficult question is not whether a policy causes any harm, but what kind of harm it causes, how severe it is, how long it is expected to last, and whether that harm is an unavoidable side effect or a necessary part of a strategy.

A recurring sentiment in online discussions of specific policies is that “things must get worse before they get better.” The phrase can describe anything from accepting temporary economic disruption to believing that a deeper political or institutional crisis is necessary to create the conditions for meaningful change.

For example, some supporters of current US tariffs accept that consumers, farmers, and businesses may face higher prices or economic disruption, but argue that this temporary pain is necessary to rebuild domestic manufacturing or improve the country’s negotiating position. The argument is not necessarily that economic harm is desirable in itself, but that it is an unavoidable investment in a stronger long-term economy.

Similar reasoning appears within some farther-left online communities. This can include welcoming electoral defeats in the hope that voters become more radical and support preferred candidates, opposing incremental reforms because they might stabilize an unjust system, or believing that worsening inequality and institutional failure will accelerate the collapse of capitalism and create an opening for revolutionary change.

Other versions not strictly associated with the left/right can include supporting severe austerity to force structural reform, tolerating government dysfunction to undermine confidence in existing institutions, treating climate or economic collapse as politically clarifying, or assuming that military escalation will produce a more favorable political order after the immediate destruction.

All of these arguments differ in both scale and intent. Some accept limited disruption as a side effect of a policy with a specific mechanism for improvement, while others treat broader social or institutional deterioration as the condition that makes change possible. The distinction may depend on how direct the connection is between the harm and the expected benefit, how reversible the damage would be, and whether the strategy can succeed without conditions worsening first.

1. How should political movements evaluate strategies that rely on short-term harm or instability to produce longer-term gains?

2. What kinds or levels of harm should make such a strategy politically acceptable or unacceptable?

3. Are there moral concerns with trying to pursue such political strategies, especially with voters who did not sign on to the strategies in question?

I haven't heard much noise about this, but it seems like a strong sleeper. Adam Hamilton is the pastor of the largest United Methodist Church in the country, the Church of the Resurrection, just outside Kansas City. He's a very popular national leader in the more moderate mainline protestant circles, and makes a big deal of conversation across disagreement and setting a better neighborly tone, that kind of thing. He has some echoes of Talarico, but even more moderate. He's not a preacher before he's a politician.

He considered jumping into the race as an independent, but was swayed to run as a Democrat. The primary is August 4th. He's polling well ahead of his opponent. There isn't much polling showing his match-up with Marshall (R), but there was one poll a while back when he first got in the race showing him up 2.

Could this be a potential upset? What would have to go right? He's certainly got very strong rhetorical skills. I'm curious how people are thinking about this one.

I have tried to come up with a reason for these contradictions in the polls and election results but I have been unable to do so. According to current polls of Americans, only 10% of people approve of the job that Congress is performing. However, in the 2024 elections, each of the 97% of the incumbent Congress members who stood for election was able to be elected by their constituents.

Gerrymandering is often the answer to many of these questions, especially within the House of Representatives. However, the Senate uses the same method of gerrymandering, making it an impractical answer to the question. Also, every single senator that was running for reelection in 2022 won their elections. This suggests that the districts' boundaries have little effect upon the election of representatives to those bodies.

Finally, there is simply party loyalty. Mostly, people do not split their tickets between candidates from two different political parties for a given election. As such, an individual's performance on his or her job may not be considered during his or her evaluation for retention of his or her position.

The other popular idea is that people believe their representative in Congress is different than the rest. The US government is broken but my representative is working hard for me, I've heard of them but I have no idea who is running against them.

I am unsure of the process that might lead to the individual members of political parties being punished for contributing less than 10% to their party's campaigns. The only process that I have discovered that potentially relates to this issue is the primary elections that take place during presidential election years in many states within the United States. In these primary elections, voters who belong to a specific political party can vote for the candidate that they wish to represent their political party in the presidential election. However, nearly all of these primary elections experience very low voter turnout rates, showing that nearly all of those who do participate in such elections do not actually punish individual political party members for failing to contribute to the campaigns of their political party. Therefore, it appears that individual political party members may not be punished for failing to contribute to campaigns in the United States.

How do we reconcile this disparity?

In your opinion, does the lack of transparency regarding Mitch McConnell’s health, and let’s be real, status of life, constitute as election interference? Does his extended hospital stay affect his ability to vote and serve his constituents?

What we know, if he has passed, the state of Kentucky and their laws would permit there to be a special election, if he has passed before August 8th. We have received two pictures claiming proof of life, but in today’s age, that does not give the evidence necessary to ensure free and fair elections, or even factual information.

The question again, are republicans committing election interference by not offering enough quality information regarding the health of Mitch McConnell and is he unable to perform his duties and represent his constituents?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/07/19/mitch-mcconnell-josh-hawley/90972729007/

In the nine presidential elections after 1988, from 1992 through 2024, the Democratic nominee received the most popular votes seven times, while the Republican nominee did so twice. In both cases, the Republican nominee had already served as president and had originally reached the presidency by winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote: George W. Bush in 2000 before winning the popular vote in 2004, and Donald Trump in 2016 before winning it in 2024. ([Historical election results, UC Santa Barbara](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/presidential-election-mandates))

Bush’s 2004 victory also came while he was the sitting president. Of the nine presidents from 1952 through 2020 who sought reelection after winning a first term, six, or 66.7%, won the national popular vote. That historical record alone does not establish causation, but a preregistered survey experiment found that identifying an otherwise equivalent hypothetical candidate as a one-term incumbent increased respondents’ support by an average of 5.6 percentage points. Trump was not the incumbent in 2024, but he was already a former president. Thus, neither of the Republican Party’s two popular-vote victories after 1988 came from someone attempting to win the presidency for the first time. ([Kane, *Political Science Research and Methods*](https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2024.32))

Does this primarily reflect geographic sorting, difficulty building a nationwide Republican plurality, or some combination of the two? How much should Bush’s incumbency and Trump’s previous presidential service affect how the two Republican popular-vote victories are interpreted?

For a long time, Syrskyi was a highly controversial figure in Ukraine. Many critics accused him of relying on costly attritional tactics and labeled him a "butcher," arguing that he was too willing to sacrifice soldiers' lives to achieve military objectives. After weeks of public criticism and calls for his resignation, he was removed from his position.

This raises a broader question: if public opinion can influence military leadership decisions during wartime, is that an example of democratic accountability working as intended, or a dangerous precedent? Where should the line be drawn between civilian oversight of the military and the independence of professional military command?

There are a lot of different ways to do this, but the gist of it is that districts are drawn much larger than our current districts, and multiple candidates are elected within each district based on the proportion of votes that they receive. Having very large districts makes gerrymandering basically impossible, and having proportional representation means that people voting for minority parties have a chance at getting minority representation, instead of none at all.

"Since the 2010s, several electoral reform groups have advocated for the use of proportional representation to elect member of Congress, instead of the current winner-take-all plurality system. PR advocates often see proportional electoral reform as a way to achieve more representation for women and African Americans in Congress, a way to depolarize the American political system, and a way to increase political participation and turnout."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation_in_the_United_States

The problem with electoral reform is that whatever party that's in power has no incentive to change the way people are elected, because whatever system that's already in place is the reason that party is in power. The way around this seems to be either intense political pressure from constituents or citizen initiatives.

Given that gerrymandering has recently managed to get even worse than it already was (and it was pretty bad already), where do you think would be a good place to push for multi-member proportional representation and why?

I wonder if it's something that could start on the state level, with state districts being reorganized and state legislators being elected this way. And then that could act as an example to build on for federal elections.

Anyway, interested to hear people's thoughts!

I’ve been thinking about whether the 2003 Iraq War unintentionally laid the groundwork for today’s conflict with Iran.

Saddam Hussein, despite being a brutal dictator and an adversary of the United States, was also Iran’s principal regional rival. As the Sunni ruler of a Shia-majority Iraq, his regime acted as a geopolitical barrier that limited Iranian influence to the west.

After Saddam’s removal, Iraq’s new political order became dominated by Shia parties, many of which had longstanding ties to Iran. This allowed Tehran to dramatically expand its political, military, and economic influence in Iraq through allied governments and militias. The result was what became known as the “Shia Crescent”, a corridor of Iranian influence stretching from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This shift fundamentally changed Israel’s security environment. Iran’s ability to supply Hezbollah and support allied forces in Syria brought Iranian influence much closer to Israel’s borders. Over time, Israel increasingly viewed Iran not Iraq as its primary strategic threat, while the United States also became more focused on countering Iran’s growing regional influence.

From this perspective, one could argue that the Iraq War unintentionally created the conditions for the later confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran. By removing Saddam Hussein, the U.S. eliminated Iran’s strongest Arab rival and inadvertently enabled Tehran to become the dominant regional power.

I’m not suggesting the Iraq War alone caused the current conflict, there were many other factors, including Iran’s nuclear program, regional proxy conflicts, and decisions made by all sides. But is it fair to say that the invasion of Iraq made a later confrontation with Iran far more likely?

Regarding a specific aspect of liberty as understood by many modern capitalists:

The liberty prized by so many is often granted at the expense of the liberty of others. We may be free to use a random economic or geographical advantage to acquire a legally sanctioned monopoly over resources which others need, but implicit in that freedom is the denial of access to those resources to others, ultimately backed by the coercive power of the state, including incarceration.

This makes me wonder whether there is a contradiction in claiming to believe in liberty when what we really mean is the legal right to profit from exclusive control over resources at the expense of others.

Do you think this is a genuine contradiction, or is there a principled distinction that resolves it?

In books like One-Dimensional Man and An Essay on Liberation, Herbert Marcuse argued that the working class in advanced capitalist societies had become too integrated into the system to play the revolutionary role Marx had imagined. Higher living standards, consumer culture, organized labor, political participation, advertising, and mass media had all helped make workers more invested in the existing order.

Because of that, Marcuse began looking elsewhere for the possibility of radical change. He focused on people he described as “outcasts and outsiders,” including racial minorities, the unemployed, radical students, anti-colonial movements, and others who remained in conflict with the established system. He also saw the women’s liberation movement as having revolutionary potential.

Marcuse was part of the Frankfurt School, a Marxist intellectual movement centered on the Institute for Social Research, founded in Frankfurt in 1923. One of its main questions was why the working-class revolution predicted by Marx had failed to happen in advanced Western countries. Its thinkers studied how consumerism, mass media, nationalism, psychology, authoritarianism, and modern institutions helped stabilize capitalist society.

A similar pattern can be seen in the modern left. The focus has shifted from economic class alone to groups defined by race, immigration status, religion, gender, and sexuality. Undocumented immigrants, Muslim communities, and LGBT people are often treated as key marginalized groups whose experiences are used to point to broader inequalities in Western society.

These groups do not always share the same values or political interests. There are obvious tensions, especially between progressive views on sexuality and the more conservative religious beliefs held by many Muslims. Even so, they are often brought together politically through a shared language of discrimination, exclusion, minority rights, and opposition to established institutions.

In that sense, the modern left has partly replaced the old Marxist image of a united industrial working class with a broader coalition of groups seen as socially, culturally, or politically marginalized.

Suppose Muslim communities continue to grow significantly in Western countries and gain greater electoral and institutional influence. What guarantees that LGBT rights will remain non-negotiable when conservative religious voters object to school curricula, same-sex relationships, gender-transition policies or public expressions of sexuality?

Will it protect schools, speech and civil law from religious pressure?

Will LGBT equality remain an absolute principle, even when it costs votes? Will the left criticize Islamic opposition to homosexuality?

Or will LGBT people be told to remain silent?

As trump's approval ratings continue to decline following a series of controversial decisions, many people are wondering what political strategy might come next...

One concern is that renewed election fraud claims (this time centered on allegations of Chinese interference in the 2020 election) could be used to justify "extraordinary actions".

If that happened, could trump supporters once again be mobilized into unrest? Could the federal government attempt to exert greater control over state run elections, potentially raising questions about the Tenth Amendment and states' authority over election administration?

If a situation like this were to unfold, do you think U.S. courts and Congress would be able to respond effectively?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!!

To some, moderation means sitting on the fence, taking no stance, holding no position or loyalty to a party. This implies that American politics is a line with two positions on each end, and a stretch in the middle for politicians to fight over, and that moderates are people who have failed to make a choice. However, in practice, no one likes the two-party system, and research done by More in Common shows that about 2/3 of Americans are outside of partisan wings. With the rising distrust in the partisan wings, moderates seem poised to grow in popularity and respect.

With that in mind, I have two questions:

First: Are they right? Is moderation a non-position?

Second: What would need to change for centrism, moderation, and/or independence to become a respected position?

Throughout American history, presidents have generally observed the unwritten norms surrounding the office. While these traditions were never legally binding, they often reflected concerns about public perception, security, institutional legitimacy, or the symbolic role of the presidency.

Donald Trump has been notably more willing than his predecessors to disregard many of these conventions. One recent example was his decision to attend an NBA Finals game, becoming the first sitting president to do so. The visit required heightened security that affected fans attending the event, and his appearance drew boos from many in attendance. Images circulating afterward also showed him appearing to nod off during the game, prompting comparisons to his previous attacks on Joe Biden.

Supporters argue that breaking with tradition demonstrates authenticity and a willingness to challenge outdated expectations. Critics contend that many presidential norms exist because they help avoid unnecessary political distractions and preserve the dignity of the office.

This raises a broader political question:

Do presidential norms still provide meaningful political guardrails, or have they become largely irrelevant in an era of intense partisan polarization? More specifically, do events like this have any measurable effect on public opinion, or are they simply short-lived media moments that reinforce views people already hold?

Presidents often pardon allies, donors, family members, or political insiders — sometimes right before leaving office. It looks like the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for the connected.

Should we change the rules so no elected official, their spouse, kids, or inner circle can ever receive a presidential pardon? Would this reduce corruption and self-dealing, or just create new problems?

Realistic fix or naive idea? Thoughts from both sides welcome.

As an outsider, I find it hard to understand why the war in Gaza is still continuing despite the enormous imbalance in military power. Israel has overwhelming military superiority, while Gaza has suffered widespread destruction and a devastating civilian death toll.

If Hamas has no realistic chance of defeating Israel militarily, and Israel cannot achieve peace through force all alone, what is each side still hoping to accomplish? And what kind of realistic outcome could actually bring the war to an end, rather than simply pause it until the next round of fighting?

[DISCLAIMER: While I do have an education in US history from 1865-1975 I would by no means consider myself an “expert” in the political workings of the United States.]

I’ve been keeping up with US politics and one thing that keeps showing up is Zohran Mamdani’s work in New York City. Many people, such as myself, admire what he is trying to do in the city and think it’s a real bright light in a current very divided political world.

But it has prompted the discussion between me and friends of the fact that Zohran Mamdani according to the Constitution would not be able to run for President as he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. However we also talk about how the US is built on the idea of freedom of choice and democracy and the fact you are able to write in whatever candidate you believe would be best for the position.

This ultimately comes down to the idea of in a hypothetical scenario where the majority of the United States wanted to elect somebody like Mamdani to be president would having the majority of votes be able to bypass the constitution in that way? Or would the votes comes in and simply be deemed “invalid” and they just go for the second most voted.

To me it’s an interesting idea on whether the constitution that built the United States would be more important or the freedom of the people to choose the candidate who best represents them.

The asset classes could be defined.

Exclude real property and retirement savings.

Exclude cash assets under an indexed threshold (maybe $250,000?).

The federal employees might be all elected legislators, cabinet members and SCOTUS.

The timing would be within 3 months of taking office and through 3 months after leaving office.

The intent would be to reduce the ability to self deal in a government leadership role and align job performance to government performance.

We complain nonstop about gridlock, corruption, and out-of-touch politicians. But can everyday Americans realistically force Congress to draft, debate, and pass a new law on a major issue?

Petitions, protests, voting, public pressure, referendums in some states — do any of these truly compel action, or is it all theater while Congress does whatever benefits insiders?

Serious answers only: What mechanisms (if any) give citizens real leverage? Has it ever worked? Or is the system designed so only money, lobbyists, and party insiders hold the power?

All perspectives welcome.

Is it ethically acceptable or even strategically justifiable for politicians (regardless of party affiliation) to deliberately spread misleading, false, or deceitful information in pursuit of power, policy goals, or electoral success?

No blame game and no referencing individual politicians, keep it to baseline principles.

Should there be swift consequences or forced retractions when this happens? Does party affiliation change the ethical standard?

For context, on a scale of 1 (Never acceptable) to 10 (Very acceptable), how would you score the current baseline in your state and/or country?

Looking for thoughtful, principle-based answers with historical or philosophical insights.

From my knowledge, most conservatives live in rural areas and want less taxation because public goods/services are less impactful for them, and most liberals live in more urban areas where higher taxes are more beneficial because they can actually utilize the public goods/services that they fund. Why don't we lower federal taxes by some amount and let counties or states increase/decrease taxes independently to satisfy both sides?

Do you think Trump has an heir apparent, or is it one of those things where no one in Washington dares talk about it for fear of reminding Trump of his mortality/term limits?

I know the obvious answer is Vance, but Vance does not wield the same kind of fear and influence that Trump does. Similar with Mike Johnson, Rubio, etc.

It's not like he's put forward any of his own kids to take over after him either. In Term 1, it looked like maybe Ivanka was being groomed (phrasing) for the role, she's sorta disappeared from her spot next to him now.

I do wonder to what degree Trump's ego is like, "Why do I care what happens when I'm done," so he's not concerned with someone to take up the mantle.

Or watch as tomorrow Silicon Valley unveils a clone of Trump, like we're living in Foundation.

A lot of discussions about political influence focus on campaign donations, lobbying, and elections. That got me wondering whether there are other ways for ordinary citizens to collectively influence their communities.

Municipal bonds help finance local infrastructure and public projects, and investors receive interest payments in return. While buying a bond doesn't give someone a vote on government policy, it does provide capital for projects that voters and local governments have already approved.

If large numbers of citizens intentionally invested in municipal bonds issued by their own communities, could that be viewed as another form of civic participation alongside voting and advocacy? Could it strengthen local investment and public engagement, or would the impact of individual investors be too small to matter compared with institutional buyers?

I'm not suggesting this would replace elections or campaign finance reform. I'm curious whether encouraging broader public ownership of municipal debt could have meaningful economic or civic benefits.

The SAVE Act makes sense on a theoretical level. Citizenship is required to vote, so prove your citizenship before voting. Adding a layer of trust to our elections. But Dems brought up valid concerns: many voters may have difficulty with financing or access to request documents.

Would it have been possible to solve these issues in a bipartisan way, through some kind of subsidized program to help people get their documents free of charge? What could it look like?

I was watching Legal Eagle's "Supreme Court Just Legalized Racial Profiling" video (https://youtu.be/6ERPT3tZTSc?is=S5QVjErRjpnJzzr7), and realized that even though I agree with everything Legal Eagle is saying, so much of it would be superseded in the minds of many "turned-republican"s. I have a lot of family who fits that description, so I have a pretty good understanding of what how they respond; I imagine that they would say "I'm tired of slimy politicians who just make things worse for people like me while they line their pockets selling us out to their donors and enforcing the status quo. It's not about moral superiority, it's about choosing between my children and people I don't know." And a lot of people share that sentiment, even if they aren't good at communicating it, and I can't say I don't understand where they're coming from, even if I disagree with the conclusion that we're should trade some people's rights for other people's benefits.

How are we supposed to argue against that? Or, otherwise solve the problem of people using that rationale? Off the top of my head, I would try to argue that violating other people's rights leads to your future children being hurt. But I'm not sure how exactly I would do that, and the point of this post is to hear everyone's thoughts and have that discussion; this is a major problem that we're facing in America, and it can't be solved with just one person.