From the Center

The first days of a new year are usually pretty light on the news, so this time of year is usually a good opportunity to take a step back for some broader reflection before the battle is joined. But 2025 has already begun with a rush. 

New Year's Day was marked by twin terrorist attacks on two of the nation’s largest tourist destinations. Two days later, the House of Representatives narrowly avoided a constitutional crisis when renegade conservatives backed down from their threat to hold their Speaker hostage. The same day, a New York state judge upheld Donald Trump’s hush money conviction and scheduled his sentencing for this Friday, ensuring that Trump will be the first felon ever to serve as President of the United States.

That doesn’t include the certification of the presidential election results on Monday, January 6, which as of this writing, appeared to be proceeding on track, albeit having been designated as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) by the Department of Homeland Security. Under more normal circumstances, that’s a full month of news, at least. But we’re just getting started.

By next week, Senate confirmation hearings for Trump’s Cabinet nominees will be underway and Congress will be moving forward with his proposals for border, tax, and energy policy. His inauguration is scheduled for January 20, the first time a presidential swearing-in will take place on the same day as the observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day since 1997. And the pace should be expected to quicken at that point rather than slow: assume a year-long (or more likely four year) roller coaster ride that will leave us gasping for breath.

It’s also safe to predict that the anger and the acrimony that shaped last year’s election and has characterized modern-day politics in this country and most other democracies will not subside anytime soon. So before the president, the Congress and the country get too much further into this year’s fracas, it may be worth a moment to take stock of the current no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-death political and cultural landscape that we occupy.

We find ourselves divided almost precisely in half by bitter political dispute, and utterly baffled as to how roughly 50 percent of our fellow citizens could possibly have voted for another candidate than our own. We are convinced of our own certitude and righteousness, and even more convinced of the danger posed by the person who we voted against. So we conclude that those who disagree with our selection must be stupid or evil or otherwise beneath our contempt.

Which means that almost all of us now despise almost half of us. Which means that the near-unanimous sentiment in our society is that each of us is completely, totally, and entirely right about the future of the country and the world, and that those who disagree are just as utterly and indefensibly wrong. This is not the way a healthy society is supposed to function.

Our nation’s founders warned of such intolerance and conceit. When they proposed measures to protect against what they referred to as “the tyranny of the majority” their purpose was not just to protect the rights of the minority, but to remind those in power of the need for humility. Just because one side has more votes than the other does not mean that those in the majority are unfailingly correct. But that is the way we practice politics today, with an arrogance and egotism that assume superior numbers inevitably leads to superior thinking.

Pride is usually listed as the first of the seven deadly sins, as it is considered to be the root from which more spiritual transgressions like envy and wrath and then physical indulgences like gluttony and lust emanate. To include uncompromising partisanship on this last would be a considerable overreach, but the language on which we rely to demonize our political foes can sound a lot like the type of untrammeled pride that is the root of the other deadly sins.

The Bible tells us that: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”  My resolution this year is to try to be a better listener, especially of those with whom I disagree. Hearing the other side doesn’t necessarily mean I have to agree with them, but making the effort may increase the chances that I can understand their thinking, disagree more civilly and perhaps find some common ground. I hope some of you will make a similar effort.

Want to talk about this topic more? Join Dan for his webinar, “The Dan Schnur Political Report." And read more of Dan’s writing at www.danschnurpolitics.com.

Dan Schnur is a Professor at the University of California – Berkeley, Pepperdine University, and the University of Southern California, where he teaches courses in politics, communications and leadership. Dan is a No Party Preference voter, but previously worked on four presidential and three gubernatorial campaigns, serving as the national Director of Communications for the 2000 presidential campaign of U.S. Senator John McCain and the chief media spokesman for California Governor Pete Wilson. He has a Center bias.

This piece was reviewed and edited by Clare Ashcraft, Bridging Coordinator & Media Analyst (Center bias).