Charlottesville and Platforming White Nationalism

In August 2017, something happened that shocked the country: a group of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and far-right extremists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, for a rally they called “Unite the Right.” They said they were protesting the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. But what the world saw was something much darker—marchers with torches chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans like “Jews will not replace us.”

Violence broke out. One of the white nationalists drove his car into a crowd of peaceful counter-protesters, killing a woman named Heather Heyer and injuring many others. The event was a clear and horrifying display of hate in the open. It reminded us that racism and extremism are still very much alive in this country.

A Divisive Response from the White House

Instead of bringing people together in the wake of the tragedy, President Trump made things worse. He said there was violence “on many sides” and that some of the marchers were “very fine people.” For many Americans, this wasn’t just a tone-deaf comment—it felt like he was defending racists. His words caused outrage and heartbreak for people who believe in equality and civil rights. But Trump’s supporters said the media twisted his words and claimed he was simply trying to be fair.

No matter which side you were on, one thing was clear: the country was more divided than ever.

Civil Rights Under Threat

The rise of white nationalism and the lukewarm response from national leaders have had real consequences for civil rights. Hate crimes have increased since 2017. Groups that used to be pushed to the fringes now feel emboldened. At the same time, laws meant to protect people from discrimination—like voting rights laws—have been weakened in many states. Communities of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable groups feel less safe and less supported.

When hate becomes normalized, civil rights take a hit.

Corporate Power and Hypocrisy

In the wake of Charlottesville, some big companies put out statements condemning hate. A few even cut ties with far-right groups. But here’s the thing: many of those same companies continue to fund politicians who support laws that make it harder for people to vote or protest.

This shows how corporate power can play both sides. On the surface, companies want to look like they stand for justice. Behind the scenes, they often support policies that deepen inequality. That’s not just hypocrisy—it’s part of the problem.

White Nationalism and the Ballot Box

Elections have also been affected. The same forces that showed up in Charlottesville have made their way into mainstream politics. Some candidates now openly use fear and division to win votes—talking about “invasions” at the border, spreading conspiracy theories, or promising to defend “traditional” values against so-called threats.

This kind of messaging is dangerous because it makes people feel like they have to pick sides based on race, religion, or culture. It turns neighbors into enemies. And it leads to voter suppression efforts that target Black and brown communities.

So Where Do We Go from Here?

Charlottesville was more than just a tragic moment—it was a warning sign. It showed us that ignoring hate doesn’t make it go away. It also reminded us that silence from leaders—or worse, encouragement—can make things worse.

If we want a more united America, we have to speak out against white nationalism and racism in all its forms. We have to protect civil rights, hold corporations accountable, and demand fair elections. That’s not about left vs. right—it’s about right vs. wrong.

We may not all agree on everything, but we should be able to agree on this: hate has no place in our democracy.

How the 2016 Trump Election Shaped a Divided America

The 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton wasn’t a normal campaign. It was full of anger, fear, and deep disagreement about what kind of country America should be. And the way it played out—and what followed—has had lasting effects on civil rights, corporate power, and how people feel about elections.

A Campaign That Made the Divide Worse

Trump ran as someone who would break the system and speak for people who felt ignored. Clinton ran as someone who knew how the system worked and wanted to improve it. Their campaigns couldn’t have been more different.

But instead of focusing on policy, the election became personal and hostile. Trump led crowds in chanting “Lock her up!” about Clinton. Russian groups spread lies on social media to stir up anger. The FBI reopened an email investigation just before the vote, creating more confusion. Meanwhile, Trump made many offensive comments about immigrants, women, and minorities.

These things made people more suspicious of each other and more distrustful of the political system. And when Trump won the Electoral College—but lost the popular vote by almost 3 million—it only made those feelings worse.

Civil Rights Were Weakened

After the election, millions of people protested. Many worried about what Trump’s presidency would mean for civil rights. During his time in office, those concerns grew.

The Trump administration rolled back protections for immigrants, LGBTQ+ Americans, and people of color. It took a more aggressive approach to immigration and ignored or downplayed issues of racism. It also placed judges in federal courts who were less likely to support civil rights laws.

For people who had been pushing for more equality, these changes felt like a step backward.

Big Business Got Bigger

Trump often talked about standing up for regular people. But many of the policies his administration pushed ended up helping corporations and wealthy donors.

He signed a tax bill that mostly benefited large businesses and the richest Americans. His administration cut back environmental rules, consumer protections, and other regulations meant to hold corporations accountable. He also brought in many officials who had close ties to the industries they were supposed to oversee.

As a result, big companies gained even more power during his presidency, while working people continued to struggle with wages, healthcare costs, and job security.

Elections Lost Trust

The 2016 election also raised big questions about how elections work—and whether they’re fair.

Even though Clinton won more votes nationwide, Trump became president because of the Electoral College. That made many people feel like their votes didn’t count. On top of that, Russian interference and online misinformation showed how easy it is for outside forces to influence public opinion.

These problems didn’t go away. In fact, distrust in elections grew over the next few years. More Americans began to believe that the system was rigged against them, or that elections were being stolen—especially when leaders repeated those claims without evidence.

A Country More Divided

Trump’s time in office made the country more divided than it already was. Some people saw him as a necessary change. Others saw him as a threat to democracy and civil rights. These sharply different views made it harder for Americans to talk to each other, even within families and communities.

The anger and mistrust that built up during and after 2016 is still with us today.

What We Can Learn

The 2016 election didn’t create all of America’s problems, but it made many of them more obvious. It showed how fragile civil rights protections can be, how much power corporations still have, and how important it is to protect fair and trustworthy elections.

These are issues that affect everyone—no matter which side of politics they’re on. If we want a more stable and fair country, we’ll have to face these challenges head-on and find ways to work through them together.

Trump’s first term had some limits. Many civil servants, military leaders, and agency officials still felt bound by their oath to the Constitution and worked to stop the most extreme ideas from becoming policy. But that guardrail is gone.

Now that Trump has returned to power, he’s made it clear that loyalty to him comes before qualifications or experience. Many of his new appointees were chosen not for their ability to govern, but for their willingness to follow orders and ignore norms. He and Elon Musk, working in tandem, are actively dismantling the very institutions that once held him back—often pushing the limits of legal authority or bypassing it altogether.

This isn’t just about politics. It’s about whether government still works for the people—or only for those at the top. What happens next depends on whether the public is paying attention, staying informed, and willing to push back when power is abused.

The SAVE Act Sounds Harmless. Here’s Why It’s Not.

There’s a bill moving through Congress called the SAVE Act—short for Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. With a name like that, it sounds like it’s about protecting elections and making sure only citizens can vote.

But here’s the thing: noncitizens voting in federal elections is already illegal, and it almost never happens. This bill doesn’t solve a real problem—it creates new ones. Big ones.

Let’s talk about what the SAVE Act would actually do—and why voting rights groups are sounding the alarm.

What the SAVE Act Would Do

If passed, the SAVE Act would require every single person to show proof of U.S. citizenship—like a passport or birth certificate—just to register to vote.

That means:

• No more simple online voter registration

• No more quick sign-ups at the DMV or through voter registration drives

• No registering by mail unless you show up in person with documents

• And if your name has changed (like many married women), you might have to bring extra documents to prove who you are

And if you don’t have those papers? You can’t register. Period.

Why That’s a Big Problem

Millions of eligible voters don’t have easy access to the kinds of documents the SAVE Act requires. Think about it:

• Military families stationed overseas

• Older Americans who were never issued birth certificates

• People displaced by natural disasters who lost important papers

• Low-income citizens who can’t afford to pay for copies of documents

• Married women or anyone whose names don’t match their birth certificates

Even if you’ve been voting your whole life, if you move and need to re-register, you’d be treated like a brand-new voter—and be blocked if you don’t have the right paperwork in hand.

It’s not just inconvenient. It’s a real barrier. And for some people, it means being completely shut out of the voting process.

What About Noncitizens Voting?

Let’s be clear: noncitizen voting is already illegal. Every voter has to sign an oath under penalty of perjury that they are a U.S. citizen. And states already have systems in place to keep the voter rolls clean.

There’s no evidence of widespread fraud. In fact, multiple audits have found that noncitizen voting is incredibly rare—we’re talking a handful of cases in millions of votes.

So the SAVE Act is trying to fix a problem that barely exists, while creating a much bigger one: voter suppression.

Who Does This Benefit?

Supporters of the bill say it’s about “election security.” But critics point out that it would make it much harder for everyday Americans to register and vote, especially if they move, change their name, or don’t have the right documents on hand.

And when voter turnout goes down, it often affects young people, people of color, low-income communities, and voters who move a lot. In other words, groups that some politicians might prefer to keep off the rolls.

Why This Matters

Voting is the foundation of our democracy. It should be accessible, safe, and secure—without putting up walls for people who are already eligible.

The SAVE Act isn’t about safeguarding anything. It’s about making it harder for people to participate in elections—and that’s a step backward.

Don’t just take my word for it:

SAVE Act Text

League of Women Voters

TL;DR

• The SAVE Act would require everyone to show a passport, birth certificate, or similar document just to register to vote

• Millions of eligible voters don’t have those documents handy

• It would hit military families, seniors, married women, people with low incomes, and disaster victims the hardest

• It tries to stop a problem that barely exists—while making it harder for real citizens to vote

Bottom line: Don’t let the name fool you. The SAVE Act isn’t about protecting your vote. It’s about taking it away.

How Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Changed America—For Better and for Worse

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court made history with a decision called Obergefell v. Hodges. It ruled that same-sex couples have the same right to marry as straight couples. For millions of LGBTQ Americans, it was a huge win—finally being seen as equal under the law. It was a moment of joy, pride, and progress for civil rights.

But as we’ve seen many times in our history, big steps forward can also come with strong resistance. While many Americans celebrated, others felt the country was moving too fast, leaving their values behind. Social conservatives, especially in religious communities, saw this ruling not as progress—but as a threat to their way of life.

That clash created more than just a disagreement. It deepened the divide between two very different visions of America. One side was pushing for full inclusion, equal rights, and recognition. The other was pushing back, worried about losing traditions and religious freedom. You could see it in real-life conflicts—like bakers refusing to make cakes for gay weddings or county clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses. These moments weren’t just about cake or paperwork. They became symbols in a larger culture war.

But this isn’t just a story about marriage. It’s also about power—who has it, how it’s used, and how it shapes our country.

Corporate America Joins the Fight—But Why?

After same-sex marriage was legalized, many big companies were quick to show support. Rainbow logos popped up in ads and on social media. Pride events were sponsored by banks, tech giants, and clothing brands. On the surface, it looked like progress—proof that society was moving forward.

But there’s another side to that story.

Corporate support for LGBTQ rights wasn’t just about equality. It was also about profit. Supporting popular social causes makes companies look good, especially with younger and more progressive customers. But while they put rainbow flags on their ads, many of these same companies donated to politicians who were trying to roll back LGBTQ rights or pass anti-trans laws.

So the question is: were they standing up for justice, or just doing good business?

This mix of politics and profit has become more common, and it’s left a lot of people feeling distrustful. Some conservatives now see big companies as pushing a “woke” agenda. Some progressives see them as fake allies—saying the right things while funding the wrong people.

Elections and the Politics of Division

The legalization of same-sex marriage also changed the political landscape. It energized both sides. Progressives used it to push for more rights—like protections for transgender Americans. Conservatives, on the other hand, used the backlash to rally voters who felt left behind by a changing culture.

In many ways, same-sex marriage became a turning point. It marked a big win for civil rights—but also added fuel to the fire of America’s growing divide. Elections since then have reflected that split, with culture war issues playing a bigger role than ever.

It’s not that same-sex marriage caused the division. But it revealed how deep it already was—and how issues of identity, rights, and belief can shape not just personal lives, but national politics.

So Where Do We Go From Here?

We need to be honest about the complexity of progress. Legalizing same-sex marriage was the right thing to do. It brought dignity and fairness to millions of people. But we also need to understand how change—even when it’s good—can make others feel anxious or left behind.

One thing that doesn’t get talked about enough is what marriage actually means in legal terms. It’s not just about love or having a ceremony. Marriage comes with a long list of rights and protections that many straight couples take for granted—like access to a spouse’s health insurance, hospital visitation, financial decision-making, inheritance rights, and Social Security or veterans’ benefits after a spouse dies.

Before same-sex marriage was legal, LGBTQ couples often had to hire lawyers to create complicated contracts just to get some of those protections—and even then, they couldn’t get all of them. Health insurance through a partner’s job, for example, was often impossible without a legal marriage. Civil unions helped in some states, but they weren’t recognized everywhere and didn’t offer full equality.

That’s why marriage equality mattered. It wasn’t just symbolic—it changed real, everyday lives.

If we want to move forward as a country, we have to find ways to talk about these things without shouting. We have to hold both truths at once: that civil rights matter deeply—and that change often brings conflict. The challenge is how to keep pushing for justice without tearing ourselves apart in the process.

How Black Lives Matter Changed America

When Black Lives Matter (BLM) emerged in 2014, it wasn’t just a hashtag—it was a demand for justice. The deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and other unarmed Black Americans at the hands of police sparked protests across the country. People of all races joined together to call for police reform and racial justice. But just as quickly as support for BLM grew, so did the backlash.

Some saw BLM as a movement for equality. Others saw it as an attack on law enforcement. The phrase “Black Lives Matter” was met with responses like “Blue Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter,” turning what should have been a conversation about justice into yet another political battle. Over the years, BLM’s impact has rippled across civil rights, corporate power, and even elections—deepening the divide in America.

The Civil Rights Impact: Progress or Polarization?

BLM forced America to confront systemic racism in policing and beyond. It led to policy changes in some cities, including bans on chokeholds and the removal of police officers from schools. It also increased awareness of racial disparities in criminal justice, housing, and healthcare.

But progress came at a cost. As protests turned violent in some cities, critics painted the movement as lawless and destructive. Right-wing media pushed a narrative that BLM was anti-police, fueling fear and division. Instead of leading to a national consensus on reform, BLM deepened political and racial tensions.

Corporate America: Genuine Support or Marketing Stunt?

In 2020, after George Floyd’s death, corporations rushed to show support for BLM. Major companies issued statements, changed their social media logos, and donated millions to racial justice causes. Nike ran ads against racism. Ben & Jerry’s called for police reform. Even NASCAR banned the Confederate flag.

But how much of this was real? Critics argue that corporate America capitalized on the movement to boost its image. While some companies made real changes—hiring more diverse employees or reviewing discriminatory practices—many did little beyond symbolic gestures. As time passed, much of this corporate activism faded, leading many to question whether BLM’s influence on business was just a passing trend.

Elections: Mobilizing Voters or Dividing the Country?

BLM also reshaped American politics. The movement energized Black voters and young activists, helping Democrats win key elections in 2020. Calls to “defund the police” became a rallying cry for progressives, while conservatives used it to paint Democrats as extremists.

Republicans seized on the unrest and fear, making “law and order” a central campaign theme. Donald Trump and others portrayed BLM as dangerous, using images of burning buildings to drive home their message. This strategy worked—while Black voter turnout increased in 2020, Trump also gained support among Latinos and white voters who saw BLM protests as a threat to stability.

A Movement That Changed America—But Not in the Way Many Hoped

BLM brought urgent issues to light and forced change in some areas. But it also became a political flashpoint, with both sides using it to rally their base rather than find solutions. Instead of uniting Americans in the fight for justice, the movement—like so many others before it—became another battleground in an already divided nation.

The question now is: Can we move past the division and focus on the real issues? Or will every movement for change be twisted into another reason for Americans to turn against each other?

How Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Expanded Corporate Power

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, deciding that certain businesses could refuse to follow federal laws if those laws conflicted with the owners' religious beliefs. Specifically, the case involved Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores whose owners objected to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employee health insurance include birth control coverage. The Court’s 5-4 decision said that closely held corporations (those owned by just a few people) could claim religious exemptions, just like individuals.

This ruling had far-reaching consequences, not just for health care but also for corporate power, civil rights, and even elections. It fueled tensions in an already deeply divided America. Here’s why:

Corporate Rights vs. Individual Rights

The decision strengthened the idea that corporations have many of the same rights as individuals. But in this case, the rights of the company’s owners were prioritized over the rights of employees. Critics argued that this gave businesses too much power, allowing them to impose their beliefs on workers and limiting access to contraception, a key part of women’s health care.

The ruling also set a dangerous precedent: If a company could deny birth control coverage based on religious beliefs, what else could they refuse? Could businesses reject coverage for vaccines? Mental health care? LGBTQ+ rights? This case blurred the lines between personal faith and public responsibility, sparking concerns that corporate religious freedom could override individual freedoms.

Expanding Corporate Influence

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was part of a broader shift toward expanding corporate influence in American life. The ruling built on the controversial Citizens United decision from 2010, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited money in elections under the argument that businesses have free speech rights. Both cases elevated corporate power, reducing the ability of everyday Americans to make their own choices, whether in the workplace or at the ballot box.

When corporations gain more rights, they gain more control—not just over employees, but over society. Wealthy business owners can shape policies in ways that benefit them while making life harder for workers. This deepens economic and social inequality, fueling resentment and division.

Impact on Elections and Political Polarization

The Court’s decision also played into America’s growing political divide. Conservative groups celebrated it as a victory for religious freedom, while progressives saw it as an attack on women’s rights and a sign of corporate overreach. This added fuel to the ongoing culture wars, further splitting Americans into opposing camps.

Politicians and advocacy groups used the ruling to rally their bases. Conservatives framed it as protection against government overreach, while liberals pointed to it as an example of creeping corporate control over personal freedoms. This division made it harder to find common ground, as each side became more entrenched in its views.

The Bigger Picture

The effects of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby go beyond just contraception coverage. It’s part of a larger trend where corporations gain more legal rights at the expense of individuals, especially workers. When business owners can use their personal beliefs to deny services, it weakens protections for employees and chips away at civil rights.

This ruling also shows how the Supreme Court plays a key role in shaping America’s future. Justices serve for life, and their decisions have long-term consequences. Cases like this highlight why elections matter—who we vote for determines who appoints justices, and those justices make decisions that shape our rights for generations.

Corporate Power Over Worker Rights

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was more than a legal battle over birth control; it was a major victory in the ongoing expansion of corporate power over worker rights. By allowing business owners to impose their personal beliefs on employees' healthcare, the ruling reinforced a pattern where corporations gain more legal protections while workers lose autonomy. This decision set a precedent that further erodes employee rights, widening the power gap between businesses and individuals. As corporate influence continues to grow in law and politics, the struggle to protect worker rights remains an uphill battle.

McCutcheon v. FEC: Giving Billionaires a Louder Political Voice

In 2014, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in McCutcheon v. FEC that changed the way money flows through American politics. It struck down the overall limits on how much a wealthy individual could donate to all candidates and political parties combined. Before, a donor was capped at around $123,000 per election cycle. After McCutcheon, that limit was erased, giving billionaires the ability to donate the maximum amount to as many candidates and committees as they wanted. This ruling may seem like a technical change, but its effects have been profound—especially on civil rights, corporate power, and the deepening divides in American politics.

More Money, More Influence, Less Democracy

Before McCutcheon, campaign finance laws attempted to put some guardrails on how much influence any one person could have. The decision removed those restrictions, allowing the wealthiest Americans to exert even more control over elections. This means that a small handful of ultra-rich individuals now have a much louder voice in politics than the average voter.

For civil rights, this is especially concerning. History has shown that progress in voting rights, racial equality, and economic justice often comes when everyday people band together to demand change. But when big money dominates elections, politicians are more likely to listen to billionaires and corporate donors rather than the communities fighting for fair wages, police reform, or better schools. As a result, policies that could advance civil rights and economic justice struggle to gain traction.

Corporate Power on Steroids

The McCutcheon ruling also reinforced the power of big corporations. While the decision technically applied to individual donors, the reality is that corporate executives and lobbyists often work in coordination to push their interests. This means more influence for industries like Big Oil, Wall Street, and pharmaceutical companies—sectors that already benefit from tax loopholes, weak regulations, and government subsidies.

Without meaningful limits on donations, corporate-backed candidates have a major advantage, while politicians who want to prioritize the needs of workers, consumers, and small businesses often struggle to compete. Over time, this tilts policies even further in favor of corporate interests, making it harder to address income inequality, climate change, and healthcare access.

Fueling Division in American Politics

One of the most damaging effects of McCutcheon is how it has contributed to political polarization. When politicians depend on a small group of ultra-wealthy donors, they often feel pressured to adopt extreme positions that appeal to these funders rather than seeking common ground.

This leads to a cycle where parties are less interested in compromise and more focused on pleasing their biggest financial backers. Instead of working toward solutions that benefit the majority of Americans, politicians cater to the ideological demands of the wealthiest donors. As a result, trust in government continues to erode, and Americans feel more divided than ever.

What Now?

McCutcheon v. FEC was another step in the wrong direction for campaign finance reform, following Citizens United in 2010. But it doesn’t have to be the final word. There are growing efforts to push back against big money in politics, from public financing of elections to constitutional amendments that would overturn these rulings.

Ultimately, democracy works best when everyone’s voice is heard—not just the voices of the wealthiest few. Until meaningful reforms are made, the consequences of McCutcheon will continue to shape our elections, our policies, and the divisions that threaten to pull us apart.

What do you think? Should there be stronger limits on money in politics, or is unrestricted giving a form of free speech?

How Shelby County v. Holder Weakened Voting Rights

In 2013, the Supreme Court made a decision that changed American elections forever. Shelby County v. Holder struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), a law that had protected Black and minority voters from discrimination since the 1960s. This ruling made it easier for states to pass restrictive voting laws, deepened political division, and strengthened corporate influence over elections.

A Brief History: Why the Voting Rights Act Mattered

For nearly a century after the Civil War, Southern states used racist laws and intimidation to keep Black Americans from voting. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and outright violence were common. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and ’60s fought to change this, leading to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The VRA banned discriminatory voting practices and required certain states with a history of racial discrimination—mostly in the South—to get federal approval before changing their voting laws. This process, called preclearance, ensured that new laws wouldn’t suppress Black and minority voters. It was one of the most effective civil rights laws in U.S. history.

What Shelby County v. Holder Did

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the formula used to determine which states needed preclearance was outdated and no longer necessary. The Court claimed that racism in voting had improved enough that federal oversight was no longer justified.

But as soon as the ruling came down, states rushed to pass new voting restrictions:

• Texas enacted a strict voter ID law the same day the decision was announced.

• North Carolina passed a law that cut early voting, eliminated same-day registration, and made it harder to vote in Black communities.

• Other states closed polling places in minority neighborhoods, purged voter rolls, and made it more difficult to vote by mail.

These laws were justified as efforts to prevent voter fraud, but study after study has shown that widespread voter fraud is a myth. The real effect of these laws was to make voting harder for minorities, the elderly, and low-income Americans.

How It Further Divided America

After Shelby, the fight over voting rights exploded. One side argued these new laws were needed to protect election security. The other pointed out that these laws targeted Black and Latino voters, rolling back hard-won civil rights.

This battle over voting access fueled even more division, with Republican-led states passing stricter laws while Democrats pushed for federal protections. Meanwhile, misinformation about voter fraud spread, leading to increased distrust in elections—especially after 2020, when false claims of fraud were used to justify even more restrictions.

How Corporations Gained More Power

When fewer people vote, big money has more influence. The same Supreme Court that decided Shelby also ruled in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which allowed corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money on elections. Together, these decisions gave wealthy donors more control while making it harder for everyday Americans—especially marginalized communities—to push back through voting.

Can We Fix This?

The fight for voting rights continues. Some lawmakers and activists are pushing for:

• Restoring preclearance, so states with a history of discrimination can’t pass unfair voting laws without federal review.

• Expanding early voting and vote-by-mail to make voting easier for everyone.

• Stopping voter purges and restrictive ID laws that unfairly target minorities and the poor.

Voting is the foundation of democracy. When access to the ballot box is limited, so is the power of the people. If we want a system that represents everyone—not just the wealthy and powerful—we must protect the right to vote for all Americans.

Occupy Wall Street: How Economic Inequality Affects America

In September 2011, a group of protesters gathered in New York City’s Zuccotti Park and sparked a movement that would change how Americans think about money, power, and fairness. Occupy Wall Street, with its famous slogan "We are the 99%," called attention to how the richest 1% of Americans hold a huge share of wealth and influence. While the protest camps didn’t last, the impact of Occupy Wall Street can still be felt today—especially when it comes to civil rights, corporate power, and elections.

Civil Rights and Economic Inequality

Occupy Wall Street made it clear that economic inequality isn’t just about money—it’s also about opportunity. Many working-class Americans, particularly people of color, experience inequality in jobs, education, and housing. The movement helped connect these struggles to a bigger issue: a system that favors the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. By highlighting the barriers that keep marginalized communities from advancing, Occupy helped fuel later movements like the Fight for $15 (which pushed for a higher minimum wage) and Black Lives Matter, which also addresses economic justice as part of its fight for racial equality.

Corporate Power and Influence

One of the main messages of Occupy Wall Street was that big corporations and wealthy elites have too much power over politics. Protesters pointed out that billionaires and corporations use their money to influence elections, push for laws that benefit them, and shape public policy in ways that hurt everyday people. This critique laid the groundwork for ongoing debates about corporate influence in government, including discussions about limiting big money in politics and reforming tax laws that let the ultra-rich pay lower rates than middle-class workers.

Elections and Division in America

The anger and frustration that fueled Occupy Wall Street didn’t go away—it shifted into politics. Economic inequality has become a major issue in elections, with candidates on both sides either embracing or pushing back against Occupy’s message. Some progressive politicians, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, built their campaigns around challenging corporate power and fighting for economic fairness. Meanwhile, conservative leaders used economic frustration to rally voters in a different way—blaming government policies or immigrants instead of the wealthy elite. This has deepened political divisions, with Americans split on what’s really causing economic hardship and how to fix it.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Occupy Wall Street didn’t solve economic inequality, but it made sure the issue couldn’t be ignored. More than a decade later, we’re still having debates about the role of corporations in politics, the fairness of our economy, and how to make sure democracy works for everyone—not just the rich. Understanding these connections helps us recognize the deeper struggles behind today’s political and social divisions. The question now is: How do we turn that awareness into action?

The Affordable Care Act: How It Divided America

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed in 2010, changed healthcare in the U.S. by expanding coverage to millions and stopping insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions. While it helped many, it also caused deep political divides that still affect the country today. The law’s impact on civil rights, corporate power, and elections shaped America’s ongoing debates about government and healthcare.

Healthcare and Civil Rights

The ACA helped make healthcare fairer. It prevented insurance companies from refusing coverage to sick people and required health plans to include essential benefits. Many low-income and minority communities benefited from Medicaid expansion, gaining access to healthcare they didn’t have before.

But not everyone saw it as progress. Many conservatives argued that because the law forced people to buy insurance, it amounted to excessive government control. The original version of the ACA included an individual mandate requiring Americans to have health insurance, but this was eliminated in 2019. The debate over whether healthcare should be a guaranteed right or an individual choice deepened the divide between liberals and conservatives, adding fuel to ongoing political tensions.

Big Business and Healthcare

The ACA also showed how much influence big corporations have over healthcare. Although the law introduced new rules for insurance companies, it also helped them by requiring more people to buy insurance. Drug companies and insurers made huge profits from the increased number of customers, keeping their power strong.

At the same time, billionaire-backed groups opposed the ACA, spreading misinformation to turn people against it. False claims, like “death panels,” scared the public and helped fuel opposition. This corporate influence played a big role in shaping opinions and elections.

Elections and Political Division

One of the biggest effects of the ACA was how it changed politics. No Republicans voted for the law, and their opposition helped them win big in the 2010 midterm elections. The Tea Party movement, which focused on small government and low taxes, grew in response. This led to years of political fights and gridlock in Congress.

Even today, healthcare remains a major political issue. Republicans repeatedly tried to repeal the ACA, while Democrats fought to protect it. While more Americans now support the law, it remains a symbol of the larger debate over government’s role in people’s lives.

The Lasting Impact of the ACA

The ACA wasn’t just about healthcare—it changed the political and economic landscape of America. It gave millions better access to medical care but also deepened divisions between liberals and conservatives. It showed the power of big business in shaping laws and influenced elections for years. The fight over healthcare continues, proving that the ACA’s impact is far from over.

How Citizens United Changed American Politics for the Worse

In 2010, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision changed how money influences American elections. By ruling that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns, the Court gave the wealthy and big businesses more power in politics. This has caused more division, hurt civil rights, and made elections less fair.

Big Money and Its Control Over Politics

The Citizens United ruling treated money as free speech, allowing corporations to spend as much as they want on elections. This has led to a rise in “super PACs” and “dark money” groups—organizations that can spend unlimited funds on campaigns without revealing where the money comes from. As a result, rich individuals and big businesses have gained outsized influence in government, drowning out the voices of regular voters.

Politicians now rely more on corporate donations, which means they often serve the interests of the wealthy rather than everyday people. Industries like oil, pharmaceuticals, and banking have used their influence to block policies that help the public, such as stronger climate protections, lower drug prices, and fair wages.

How This Hurts Civil Rights

Unlimited corporate money in politics has made it harder for some people to vote and have their voices heard. Since Citizens United, well-funded groups have pushed for voter ID laws, reduced polling places, and other restrictions that make voting harder—especially for people of color and low-income communities.

Corporate-backed groups have also worked to weaken rights in other areas, like reproductive health, labor protections, and equal education opportunities. Even the courts have been affected, as big-money donors now fund judicial elections, influencing decisions that impact civil rights.

More Political Division and Mistrust

The flood of money in politics has also increased political division. Super PACs often fund negative campaign ads, spreading misinformation and fueling anger between political parties. With so much money behind extreme messages, Americans are finding it harder to have open, respectful discussions about important issues.

Many people feel that politicians no longer represent them, leading to frustration with the government. This has fueled distrust in the system and made people more likely to support extreme movements on both the right and left.

Fixing the Problem

To reduce the damage caused by Citizens United, the U.S. needs campaign finance reform. Solutions include overturning the decision through a constitutional amendment, introducing public funding for elections, and requiring full transparency on who is funding political ads. Stronger voting rights protections and an end to gerrymandering would also help make elections fairer.

America’s democracy should be driven by the people, not the biggest wallets. If action isn’t taken, the influence of big money in politics will continue to grow, making it harder for regular citizens to have a real say in government. The fight for fair elections and civil rights depends on limiting corporate control over politics and ensuring that every vote truly counts.

How the Tea Party Movement Deepened Division in America

In 2009, a new political movement called the Tea Party took off. It started as a protest against government spending and new policies under President Obama, like healthcare reform. Many Tea Party supporters said they wanted lower taxes and less government control, but the movement also pushed the Republican Party further to the right. With backing from wealthy donors and right-wing media, the Tea Party helped reshape American politics—making elections more extreme, weakening civil rights protections, and giving corporations even more power.

Hurting Civil Rights in the Name of ‘Freedom’

The Tea Party often talked about defending the Constitution and protecting personal freedoms. But in practice, many of the policies it supported made life harder for people of color and other marginalized communities.

For example, Tea Party politicians fought hard against the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which helped millions of uninsured Americans—many from lower-income and minority backgrounds—get health coverage. They also pushed for stricter voting laws, like voter ID requirements, claiming they were stopping “fraud.” In reality, these laws made it harder for people of color to vote.

The Tea Party also gave space for politicians and media figures to use racial dog whistles—coded language that played on fears and prejudices. At rallies, some Tea Party supporters carried signs with racist images of President Obama. The movement often opposed policies that helped immigrants and supported crackdowns on undocumented communities. While not all Tea Party supporters were racist, the movement made it easier for extreme ideas to enter mainstream politics.

Giving More Power to Big Business

Although the Tea Party claimed to be a grassroots movement, it was actually funded by billionaires and corporate-backed groups like Americans for Prosperity, which was tied to the Koch brothers. These wealthy donors didn’t just want lower taxes—they wanted fewer regulations so that corporations could have more power.

Tea Party politicians pushed for policies that made it easier for big businesses to avoid taxes, weaken labor unions, and pollute without consequences. They also helped pave the way for the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited money on elections. This meant that wealthy elites had even more influence over politics, drowning out the voices of regular people.

Making Elections More Extreme and Divisive

The Tea Party changed the way elections worked, making them more about extreme ideology than actual governance. Tea Party candidates often challenged moderate Republicans in primaries, attacking them for not being “conservative enough.” This forced the entire Republican Party to the right, making compromise in Congress nearly impossible.

Because the Tea Party rewarded politicians for refusing to work with Democrats, gridlock became the norm. Government shutdowns, threats to default on the national debt, and extreme partisanship all became common after the Tea Party’s rise. This divide only grew over time, laying the groundwork for the election of Donald Trump and the rise of even more extreme political movements.

The Tea Party also promoted conspiracy thinking, like the false idea that Obama was not born in the U.S. This helped create a political environment where facts mattered less, and fear-based politics thrived. These trends led directly to election denialism, attacks on voting rights, and even the January 6th insurrection.

The Tea Party’s Lasting Impact

Even though the Tea Party is no longer a major political movement, its influence is everywhere. It helped push the Republican Party toward populism, gave big businesses more control over elections, and made politics more divided than ever. It used the language of “freedom” to justify policies that actually harmed civil rights, and it claimed to be against the elite while serving the interests of billionaires.

The divisions it created are still shaping our country today. Understanding the Tea Party’s impact is crucial as we continue to fight for civil rights, fair elections, and a government that works for all people—not just the wealthy and powerful.

How Obama’s Election Shaped Race, Politics, and Power

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 was a historic event in American history. As the country’s first Black president, his victory represented progress in civil rights and gave hope for a more united future. However, his presidency also highlighted and deepened political divisions. The backlash against Obama’s leadership helped create the extreme polarization that still affects U.S. politics today. His time in office had lasting effects on civil rights, corporate power, and elections, shaping the country in ways that continue to unfold.

Progress, Backlash, and Ongoing Challenges

Obama’s election was seen as a step forward in the fight for racial equality, but it did not mean the struggle was over. Instead, his presidency made it clear that deep racial tensions still existed. His rise to power triggered a backlash from those who saw his leadership as a challenge to the status quo. This reaction played out in several ways:

• Birtherism and Racial Hostility: The false claim that Obama was not born in the U.S. was a racially motivated attempt to undermine his presidency. Figures like Donald Trump helped spread this conspiracy theory, playing on fears and prejudices, and fueling the rise of white nationalist groups.

• Voting Rights and Suppression: While Obama’s election proved that progress was possible, it also led to efforts to restrict voting access. In 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder weakened the Voting Rights Act, resulting in new laws that made it harder for Black and minority voters to cast their ballots.

• The Rise of Black Lives Matter: During Obama’s presidency, the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and others sparked protests against police brutality and racial injustice. While Obama spoke about these issues, his careful approach frustrated some activists who wanted stronger action.

Economic Recovery and Missed Opportunities

Obama took office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. His administration took steps to stabilize the economy, but its handling of Wall Street and corporate power had long-term consequences:

• Bank Bailouts and Economic Inequality: The government’s response to the 2008 financial crisis included large bailouts for banks, but little direct relief for everyday Americans who lost their homes and jobs. This deepened resentment toward politicians and fueled anger on both the left and right.

• Health Care Reform and Corporate Influence: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded health coverage to millions, but it relied on private insurance companies, which kept costs high. While the ACA was a major achievement, many Americans remained frustrated with the healthcare system.

• Failure to Reduce Corporate Influence: Despite promising change, Obama’s presidency did not do much to reduce corporate power in politics. The 2010 Citizens United ruling allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, increasing the influence of wealthy donors in politics.

Setting the Stage for Trump

Rather than bringing Americans together, Obama’s presidency deepened political divides. His election revealed the country’s racial and ideological fractures, helping to create the conditions that led to Donald Trump’s rise:

• Republican Opposition: From the beginning, Republican leaders were focused on blocking Obama’s agenda. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell even said their top priority was to make Obama a one-term president. This led to political gridlock and frustration with the government.

• The Tea Party Movement: The Tea Party, which emerged in response to Obama’s policies, mixed economic concerns with racial resentment. It pushed the Republican Party further to the right, creating a pathway for Trump’s brand of politics.

• The Election of Donald Trump: The backlash against Obama’s presidency played a direct role in Trump’s rise. Trump used racial and economic fears to build his support, starting with the birther conspiracy he helped spread. His victory in 2016 was, in many ways, a reaction to the social and political changes Obama represented.

A Legacy That Still Shapes America

Obama’s election was a turning point in American history, but it also revealed and deepened political and racial divides. His presidency advanced civil rights in some ways but also triggered a strong backlash. His economic policies helped stabilize the system but did not do much to challenge corporate power. And his time in office changed the political landscape, making American politics more divided than ever.

As the country moves forward, the lessons of the Obama years remain important. The fight for racial justice, economic fairness, and fair elections continues. Understanding how his presidency shaped today’s political climate is crucial for those who want to create a more just and united future.

The Great Recession’s Lingering Shadow: Civil Rights, Corporate Power, and the Politics of Division

The 2008 financial crisis wasn’t just an economic catastrophe—it was a turning point that deepened political divisions, exacerbated racial inequalities, and reshaped the balance of corporate power in America. While the collapse of the housing market and the ensuing Great Recession led to widespread economic suffering, the government’s response ultimately sowed seeds of anger that continue to shape our political landscape today. Understanding how this crisis intersected with civil rights, corporate consolidation, and election dynamics is crucial to grasping the root causes of our nation’s current polarization.

The Great Recession and the Erosion of Civil Rights

Economic crises rarely impact all communities equally, and the Great Recession was no exception. Black and Latino households were disproportionately devastated, largely because they had been targeted by predatory lending practices leading up to the crash. Subprime mortgages—high-interest loans designed for borrowers with weaker credit—were aggressively pushed onto communities of color, often through discriminatory lending practices. When the housing market collapsed, these families were among the hardest hit, losing homes and generational wealth at an alarming rate.

Meanwhile, the subsequent economic downturn exacerbated racial inequalities in employment. Black and Latino workers faced higher unemployment rates than their white counterparts, and the recovery was slower in communities of color. Despite the supposed progress of the Obama era, these economic wounds fed resentment and fueled debates over racial justice that remain unresolved today.

Moreover, the recession indirectly contributed to the rise of voter suppression laws. As states faced budget crises, Republican-led legislatures seized the opportunity to pass restrictive voter ID laws and cutbacks to early voting, often under the guise of fiscal responsibility. These measures disproportionately affected minority communities, many of whom had already suffered the brunt of the economic downturn.

Corporate Power and the Rise of the “Too Big to Fail” Economy

The government’s response to the financial crisis was framed as an emergency measure to prevent total economic collapse, but in practice, it reinforced the dominance of Wall Street at the expense of ordinary Americans. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) provided massive taxpayer-funded bailouts to financial institutions deemed “too big to fail.” While banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America absorbed weaker firms and grew even larger, millions of Americans lost their homes, jobs, and savings.

The lack of accountability for Wall Street executives deepened public cynicism. Not a single top banker went to prison for the reckless practices that led to the crash, reinforcing the perception that there are two sets of rules—one for the elite and another for everyone else. Meanwhile, corporate lobbying intensified, ensuring that new regulations like Dodd-Frank were either watered down or gradually dismantled in the years that followed.

This consolidation of corporate power has had long-term consequences for democracy. Mega-corporations have used their growing influence to shape public policy, fund political campaigns, and push deregulatory agendas that prioritize profits over workers and consumers. The aftermath of the Great Recession cemented an economic order where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, leaving the working and middle classes feeling voiceless and abandoned.

Elections, Populist Resentment, and the Politics of Division

The economic devastation of the Great Recession created fertile ground for both left- and right-wing populism. Many Americans—across ideological lines—felt betrayed by a government that had bailed out Wall Street while leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves. This anger took different forms in different political movements.

On the left, the Occupy Wall Street movement emerged as a response to corporate greed and income inequality, rallying around the slogan “We are the 99%.” Though it did not translate directly into electoral victories, its message shaped progressive politics, influencing figures like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

On the right, economic hardship and cultural grievances combined to fuel the Tea Party movement, which framed government intervention as the problem rather than corporate excess. This movement laid the groundwork for the rise of Trumpism, as working-class white voters—many of whom had lost jobs and homes—channeled their frustrations into a backlash against Washington elites, immigrants, and government programs they perceived as unfairly benefiting others.

The divisions exposed by the Great Recession have only deepened over time. Economic anxieties have been exploited to drive wedges between different racial and class groups, while corporations and political elites have largely escaped accountability. The media environment, shaped by corporate consolidation, has further entrenched polarization, amplifying narratives that pit struggling Americans against one another rather than against the institutions responsible for their suffering.

Moving Forward

The legacy of the Great Recession is still with us, not just in economic terms, but in the deep-seated divisions it helped create. If we are to bridge the widening chasm in American society, we must confront the structural inequities that the crisis exposed. That means:

• Holding corporate power in check through stronger financial regulations and anti-monopoly measures.

• Addressing the racial wealth gap through policies that promote homeownership, financial security, and access to credit for marginalized communities.

• Protecting voting rights to ensure that economic distress is not used as an excuse for disenfranchisement.

• Challenging media narratives that fuel division and distract from the real sources of economic injustice.

The Great Recession was more than a financial crisis—it was a defining moment that reshaped American politics and society. The question now is whether we will continue down the path of division or work toward a more just and equitable future.

The Supreme Court’s Role in Dividing America: Civil Rights, Corporate Power, and Elections

The Supreme Court has always played a crucial role in shaping American society, but over the past two decades, its decisions have increasingly contributed to political polarization. Since Chief Justice John Roberts took the helm in 2005, the Court’s rulings have expanded corporate power, restricted civil rights protections, and reshaped election laws—creating a judicial landscape that fuels division rather than unity.

Corporate Power and the Court: Citizens United and Beyond

One of the most consequential rulings of the Roberts Court came in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission(2010). This decision dismantled decades of campaign finance restrictions by ruling that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts on elections, arguing that such expenditures constituted protected speech under the First Amendment.

The immediate result? A flood of corporate and dark money into politics. Wealthy donors gained an outsized influence over elections, drowning out the voices of everyday Americans. Rather than promoting democracy, this ruling has deepened the public’s distrust in the political system, reinforcing the belief that the government serves the interests of the rich and powerful over ordinary citizens.

The Court has also consistently ruled in favor of corporations in cases related to consumer protections, labor rights, and environmental regulations. In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018), for example, the Court upheld forced arbitration clauses, making it harder for workers to sue employers for unfair labor practices. These decisions have steadily weakened protections for working Americans while empowering corporate elites.

Civil Rights Under Attack

The Roberts Court has also taken aim at civil rights protections, particularly in voting rights, affirmative action, and LGBTQ+ rights. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, removing federal oversight of states with histories of voter suppression. The decision emboldened states to enact restrictive voting laws, including voter ID requirements, polling place closures, and purges of voter rolls—disproportionately affecting Black, Latino, and Indigenous voters.

More recently, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), the Court ruled against race-conscious admissions policies, gutting affirmative action and making it more difficult for universities to maintain diversity. This decision, celebrated by conservatives, ignored the ongoing racial disparities in education and economic opportunity.

On LGBTQ+ rights, the Court has sent mixed signals. While Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage, later rulings, such as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), have allowed businesses to deny services to LGBTQ+ individuals under the guise of free speech. These rulings create legal loopholes for discrimination, rolling back progress on civil rights.

Elections and the Erosion of Democracy

In addition to Citizens United and Shelby County, the Supreme Court has repeatedly intervened in ways that undermine fair elections. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court ruled that federal courts could not police partisan gerrymandering, giving state legislatures a free hand to manipulate district maps in favor of one party. The result? Highly partisan, uncompetitive elections where politicians choose their voters rather than the other way around.

The Court has also played a role in election disputes, most notably in Bush v. Gore (2000), which effectively decided a presidential election. More recently, its decision not to intervene in post-2020 election cases allowed states to continue imposing restrictive voting laws based on baseless claims of voter fraud. This has fed the narrative that elections are rigged—eroding trust in democracy itself.

A Court That Divides Rather Than Unites

The Supreme Court’s rulings under Roberts have disproportionately benefited corporations and conservative interests while rolling back civil rights and democratic protections. These decisions haven’t just shaped policy—they have deepened the political and cultural divides that define America today. When laws make it harder to vote, easier for the wealthy to dominate elections, and more difficult to protect marginalized communities, democracy suffers.

If the Supreme Court continues down this path, the question is no longer whether its decisions will shape the nation but whether the nation can withstand the impact. The fight for civil rights, fair elections, and economic justice may not find refuge in the courts—but it remains alive in the voices of those who refuse to accept an America that only serves the powerful.

The Culture War, Partisan Media, and the Deepening Divide in America

For decades, the United States has struggled with political division, but the rise of partisan media and the culture war has pushed the country toward a level of polarization that threatens democracy itself. Issues that were once debated in the realm of policy have become matters of identity, where Americans are increasingly divided along ideological lines, shaping not just how they vote but how they view civil rights, corporate power, and the legitimacy of elections.

The Rise of Partisan Media and the Culture War

By the early 2000s, news consumption had become increasingly partisan. Fox News, positioning itself as the alternative to so-called liberal media, experienced explosive growth in conservative viewership, while CNN and MSNBC catered to more left-leaning audiences. This sorting of media preferences wasn’t just about where people got their news—it was about the narratives being shaped. Rather than fostering debate and consensus, partisan media worked to inflame division, amplifying cultural grievances that became the foundation of the modern culture war.

The 2004 election was a key turning point. The political battle over the Iraq War, same-sex marriage bans, and the infamous “swift-boating” of John Kerry reinforced the power of wedge issues. These cultural flashpoints were not just tools for political campaigns but became entrenched in partisan identity. This period cemented the strategy of using social issues as a way to mobilize voters—not through broad-based policy discussions but through fear, outrage, and tribalism.

The Impact on Civil Rights

One of the most damaging effects of polarization has been on civil rights. The culture war has turned fundamental rights into partisan battlegrounds. Issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, and racial justice have become deeply politicized, with conservative media framing them as threats to traditional values and liberal media positioning them as fights for progress and equity.

For example, the push for same-sex marriage in the 2000s was met with aggressive political opposition, leading to ballot initiatives banning it in multiple states. The struggle for voting rights has been framed by conservatives as a battle against election fraud (despite no evidence of widespread fraud) while liberals see it as a fight against voter suppression. As media echo chambers reinforce these narratives, bipartisan solutions become nearly impossible, leaving civil rights vulnerable to the whims of whoever holds power.

Corporate Power and the Culture War

As partisan media has fueled division, corporations have learned to exploit the culture war for profit. Some companies have aligned themselves with progressive values, engaging in corporate activism to appeal to younger, liberal consumers. Others have leaned into conservative backlash, adopting anti-woke branding. But in both cases, the real winner is corporate power itself.

By steering public discourse toward cultural flashpoints, corporations avoid scrutiny of economic issues like wealth inequality, labor rights, and monopolistic practices. Instead of uniting around economic justice, Americans are caught in endless cultural battles, distracted from the policies that consolidate wealth and power at the top.

This is evident in how corporations selectively engage with political issues. Companies will issue statements about Pride Month while donating to politicians who oppose LGBTQ+ rights. They will decry racial injustice while exploiting workers of color. By keeping Americans locked in cultural combat, corporate America ensures that the status quo remains intact.

Elections and the Legitimacy Crisis

The entrenchment of partisan media and the culture war has had an even more dire consequence: the erosion of trust in elections. Conservative media, particularly after the 2020 election, has pushed the idea that any electoral loss is due to fraud. The “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6th insurrection were direct results of years of right-wing media priming its audience to believe that democracy itself was rigged against them.

This delegitimization of elections is perhaps the most dangerous effect of modern polarization. When a significant portion of the population refuses to accept the results of an election, democracy ceases to function. On the left, there is growing distrust in the Supreme Court and institutions that conservatives have stacked with ideological judges. Faith in American democracy is declining across the board, and partisan media ensures that this distrust remains a permanent feature of political life.

Breaking the Cycle

The current trajectory is unsustainable. As partisan media and the culture war continue to push Americans into opposing camps, the ability to govern effectively is collapsing. The solution requires both media reform and a shift in political strategy.

1. Media Literacy and Diversification – Americans need to recognize the role that partisan media plays in shaping their worldview. Consuming a diverse range of news sources can help break the cycle of ideological isolation.

2. Economic Solidarity Over Cultural Division – Instead of allowing corporations and politicians to use cultural issues to divide Americans, there must be a renewed focus on shared economic interests. Issues like healthcare, wages, and corporate accountability impact all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.

3. Restoring Faith in Democracy – Efforts must be made to ensure elections are free, fair, and trusted. This includes combating voter suppression, securing election infrastructure, and holding media outlets accountable for spreading disinformation.

Polarization and division are not inevitable. They are the result of deliberate strategies that benefit those in power at the expense of the public. By understanding how partisan media and the culture war are used to manipulate and divide, Americans can begin to bridge the divide and work toward a future where democracy—and not division—prevails.

The Iraq War, Polarization, and the Erosion of Civil Rights in America

The 2003 invasion of Iraq created cracks in how American’s feel about their country—not just in terms of foreign policy, but also in the deepening of domestic polarization. The war, justified by the Bush administration on the grounds that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (which were never found), ignited a fierce national debate that still echoes today.

In many ways, the Iraq War exacerbated the fractures in American society, particularly in how it shaped attitudes toward civil rights and elections. The effects of that era—distrust in government, the erosion of civil liberties, and increasing partisan division—have played a significant role in the growing political tribalism we see today.

Differing Views on the Iraq War

At the onset of the war, the country split into two camps: those who believed it was a necessary response to terrorism and those who saw it as an unjustified war of choice. Massive anti-war protests broke out across the U.S. and the world, yet a parallel surge of nationalism led to a “support the troops” movement that discouraged dissent.

This divide wasn’t just about foreign policy; it became a litmus test for American identity. Questioning the war was often equated with being unpatriotic, while supporting it became synonymous with defending freedom. This dynamic created a social pressure that stifled debate, making it easier for the government to pass laws and policies that chipped away at civil liberties.

The Patriot Act and the Rise of Government Surveillance

The post-9/11 era, intensified by the Iraq War, saw an unprecedented expansion of government surveillance. The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in 2001 but reinforced during the Iraq War years, allowed broad government access to private communications, financial records, and personal data—often with minimal oversight.

While framed as a tool to combat terrorism, these policies disproportionately affected Muslim Americans, activists, and journalists. The surveillance state that expanded under Bush set a precedent that both Democratic and Republican administrations would later use, solidifying a bipartisan erosion of civil liberties in the name of security.

Torture, Civil Liberties, and a Crisis of Credibility

The Iraq War also brought human rights abuses to the forefront, particularly with revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” sparked international condemnation and further divided Americans at home. For many, it was a wake-up call about the unchecked power of the executive branch and the fragility of civil rights when national security is invoked.

The government’s justifications for war—centered on false intelligence—deepened public skepticism toward official narratives. This erosion of trust in institutions laid the groundwork for future political movements that capitalized on widespread distrust, from the Tea Party to Trump’s rise.

Elections in an Era of Mistrust and Division

The political polarization exacerbated by the Iraq War has had lasting effects on elections. The 2004 election, held in the shadow of the war, saw some of the most aggressive voter suppression efforts in modern history, particularly in Ohio, where long wait times, purged voter rolls, and machine malfunctions disproportionately affected Democratic voters.

Fast-forward to today, and the war’s legacy can still be felt in how elections are contested. The “us vs. them” mentality that solidified during the Iraq War years has only grown stronger, making compromise nearly impossible. This polarization has contributed to:

• Voter Suppression Laws: Post-9/11 fears of terrorism were used to justify voter ID laws that disproportionately disenfranchise marginalized communities.

• Misinformation and Distrust: The government’s misleading claims about Iraq set a precedent for political leaders manipulating facts, fueling the rise of conspiracy theories that now dominate election discourse.

• Hyper-Partisan Elections: The belief that the opposing party is not just wrong but a threat to democracy itself has made elections more about defeating the enemy than governance.

A War That Never Really Ended

Although the Iraq War officially ended in 2011, its consequences still shape American society. The erosion of civil liberties, the deepening of partisan distrust, and the normalization of misinformation have all contributed to today’s fractured political climate.

The question now is whether we can learn from this history. Can we rebuild trust in institutions? Can we reclaim civil rights lost in the name of national security? Can we move beyond division and find common ground?

If the Iraq War taught us anything, it’s that truth matters, civil liberties are fragile, and unchecked power can have long-term consequences. The fight for a more just and united America depends on remembering these lessons—and acting on them.

The Post-9/11 Erosion of Civil Liberties and the Deepening Divide in America

The attacks on September 11, 2001, left an indelible mark on the United States. In the immediate aftermath, the nation came together in mourning, shock, and a collective determination to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. But the policies that followed—especially the USA PATRIOT Act—would sow the seeds of long-term civil rights erosion and political division that still plague the country today.

The USA PATRIOT Act: Security at the Cost of Liberty

Just 45 days after the attacks, with little debate, Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA PATRIOT Act—an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The bill drastically expanded government surveillance capabilities, allowing warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention, and the mass collection of personal data. At the time, few questioned the trade-off between security and civil liberties. But in hindsight, the law became one of the most significant accelerators of government overreach and public mistrust.

The Patriot Act legitimized domestic spying on American citizens, particularly targeting Muslim communities, activists, and dissenters. The government justified these actions under the banner of national security, but they fostered an atmosphere of fear, racial profiling, and division. As civil liberties groups like the ACLU warned, the act weakened constitutional protections, particularly the Fourth Amendment’s guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also paved the way for later policies, such as the NSA’s mass surveillance programs exposed by Edward Snowden.

The Chilling Effect on Free Speech and Political Participation

When the government normalizes surveillance and indefinite detention without due process, it inevitably discourages dissent. In the years following 9/11, activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens became more hesitant to speak out against government policies, fearing they could be labeled as unpatriotic—or worse, as security threats. This chilling effect has had long-term consequences on democratic engagement.

For example, post-9/11 policies disproportionately targeted Muslim Americans and immigrants, fostering a sense of alienation that made it harder for these communities to participate in elections and civic life. The fear of being monitored or wrongly accused of connections to terrorism kept many from engaging in political discourse. The “war on terror” rhetoric also gave rise to xenophobic political messaging, which right-wing movements later weaponized to push anti-immigrant and Islamophobic policies.

How Post-9/11 Policies Shaped Modern Political Divisions

The surveillance state and the erosion of civil liberties didn’t just affect those directly targeted—they contributed to a broader erosion of trust in the government. Over time, Americans on both the left and right grew increasingly skeptical of federal authority, but for different reasons.

• Progressives saw post-9/11 policies as an attack on civil rights, particularly against marginalized communities. They pushed back against mass surveillance, indefinite detention, and racial profiling.

• Conservatives, while initially supportive of expanded security powers, later turned against government overreach when they saw these same surveillance tools used against them—such as the FBI’s monitoring of far-right groups after the January 6th insurrection.

This bipartisan mistrust of government power should have united Americans in demanding stronger civil rights protections. Instead, political leaders exploited these divisions. The right, for instance, redirected anger about government overreach toward issues like election integrity and pandemic policies, fueling conspiracy theories and deepening polarization.

Election Laws, Fear, and the Patriot Act’s Legacy

One of the most underappreciated consequences of post-9/11 policies is their influence on modern election laws. The Patriot Act normalized a security-first mindset that later justified restrictive voting laws. Under the guise of preventing terrorism and fraud, lawmakers introduced measures that disproportionately impacted marginalized voters, such as strict voter ID laws, purges of voter rolls, and restrictions on mail-in voting.

The same fear-driven tactics used to justify the Patriot Act were later repurposed to push election laws that suppressed turnout, particularly among Black, Latino, and immigrant communities. Today, the rhetoric around election security echoes the post-9/11 fearmongering, with claims of “foreign interference” and “internal threats” serving as justifications for undermining democracy.

Reclaiming Civil Liberties and Restoring Trust

The erosion of civil liberties after 9/11 was not an inevitable consequence of tragedy—it was a political choice. And just as those policies were implemented through fear and manipulation, they can be reversed through collective action.

To bridge the divisions caused by these policies, Americans across the political spectrum must come together to demand stronger privacy protections, an end to mass surveillance, and fair election laws that promote participation rather than restrict it.

The Patriot Act may have been born out of crisis, but nearly a quarter-century later, we have an opportunity to learn from its failures. The question is: will we let fear continue to divide us, or will we reclaim the rights that were sacrificed in its name?

The Birth of “Red” and “Blue” America

On November 7, 2000, Americans went to the polls in what would become one of the most disputed elections in U.S. history. The focus narrowed to Florida, where the vote margin between Bush and Gore was extraordinarily slim, triggering an automatic machine recount as mandated by state law. The initial recount reduced Bush’s lead to just 317 votes. Subsequently, Gore requested manual recounts in four counties, citing concerns over ballot issues such as the infamous “hanging chads” on punch-card ballots. Legal battles ensued over the recount process, deadlines, and the inclusion of certain ballots. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes, but this decision was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 9. In a 5–4 decision on December 12, the Court ruled in Bush v. Gore to stop the recounts, effectively awarding Florida’s 25 electoral votes—and the presidency—to Bush. This ruling remains a subject of debate and has had lasting implications on public trust in the electoral process.

---

Prior to the 2000 election, there was no consistent color scheme to represent the two major political parties on electoral maps; media outlets varied in their use of colors, sometimes even alternating them between election cycles. For instance, during the 1976 election, NBC used blue to denote states won by Republican Gerald Ford and red for those won by Democrat Jimmy Carter. This lack of standardization persisted for decades. 

The protracted uncertainty of the 2000 election, with its extended recounts and legal battles, kept electoral maps in the public eye for weeks. During this period, major news networks adopted a uniform color scheme: red for Republican victories and blue for Democratic ones. This visual representation resonated with the public, leading to the widespread adoption of the terms “red states” and “blue states” to describe Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning states, respectively. The fixation on these colors became so ingrained that they are now standard in political discourse and media representation.

---

The 2000 election’s legacy extends beyond the establishment of a color-coded political map. The contentious nature of the election and the Supreme Court’s intervention heightened partisan divisions and led to increased scrutiny of the electoral process. The terms “red state” and “blue state” have come to symbolize the deep-seated ideological divides within the country, often oversimplifying the complex political landscapes of individual states. This binary classification can obscure the presence of diverse political views within states and contribute to a perception of a more polarized nation.

Furthermore, the standardization of red and blue as representations of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, is somewhat counterintuitive when compared to international norms. Globally, red is typically associated with left-leaning or socialist parties, while blue is linked to conservative parties. The American reversal of this color symbolism underscores the unique evolution of the country’s political and media practices. 

---

The 2000 presidential election was a turning point that not only tested the resilience of the American electoral system but also transformed the visual language of political affiliation in the United States. The adoption of red and blue to represent the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, has become a lasting symbol of the nation’s political identity, influencing how elections are reported and how Americans perceive political divisions. As the nation continues to grapple with issues of partisanship and electoral integrity, the legacy of the 2000 election serves as a reminder of the profound impact that electoral processes and media representations can have on democratic society.

Exploring Division: Who Profits and How We Rebuild

Did you know that prior to the year 2000 there were no red states or blue states. The color changed each election cycle?

What did we lose by that simple little change? Are we different people? Do we have different goals? Did half of us become the enemy of the other half?

No. We are all Americans.

We all want the freedom to succeed. The freedom to raise our children.  The chance at a decent life. To give our children a better life than we had. To put our mark on the world.

Somewhere along the way, corporate media, some politicians… They decided that we are easier to control when we’re divided. They’ve manufactured rage, differences, and other trivial matters that keep us apart.

But we’re better when we work together. We can do great things as a nation when we use our differences together in common purpose.

It’s time to look past the lies, look past the outrage, and kick those out that seek to destroy this great experiment where we choose who represent us, and do what is best for the whole country.

---

Over the next few posts, with some help, I’m going to look back at the past 25 years to understand the ripples that brought us to where we are today.