This was fascinating and I finally was able to connect some thoughts that have been floating around my head for a while.
One thing though - does Mamdani want people to rely on government programs, or is he trying to create a culture where people know they can rely on government programs if they need them? One creates a new form of control, the other creates freedom by relieving stressors.
While interesting, there are many cracks (rips?) in this fabric of America. I live in Texas, which is a part of the “Greater Appalachia” according to Woodard. Over the last decade I have seen a few things that make me think this is more of a rear view mirror than windshield idea. I have seen a city and community that looks more like New York than Texas. We just elected a Muslim mayor (our city keeps mayoral races non partisan.) We successfully defeated Mom’s for Liberty school board candidates. We fly our Pride flags, Palestine flags, and support our local city library. Our school district sends home important papers in multiple languages, and our neighbors run a refugee outreach center. I’ve also seen Republicans in Texas do whatever they can to change the rules to win and maintain power, all while campaigning to fix problems that they’ve created. I’ve seen billionaires buy our governor and help primary opponents to get his school voucher bill passed, that was a majority of Texans did not approve of. Tarrant county is currently going through redistricting/gerrymandering issues, and Trump himself called on our governor to redraw (aka gerrymander) the Dallas area district so Rep Jasmine Crockett cannot win. Our voter ID laws contribute to some of the worst voter suppression. The Republican’s behavior can be explained by this cultural view of America’s past, but America’s present and future is breaking through, and seeing a candidate like Mamdani succeed (even so far away in New York) is going to appeal to many of us who are more than willing to rip this old fabric to shreds.
This explains A LOT. Thank you. Today (July 4) I am celebrating the American dream as set forth by the Declaration of Independence. I am not ready to let the dream die. Warmest regards and may we all maintain hope.
This is a fascinating summary of who we are and how we make some of our decisions on an unconscious level, influenced by our surrounding culture. I loved every minute of reading it. Thank you, Rebecca and Sharon! Happy 4th!!
It makes me think about what frustrates me most about political conversations: the fact that we're all having different conversations from each other, but talking as though we are discussing the same thing. The fundamental question we need to answer first, but almost always skip over: what do we expect the role of government to be? If you think it should have a role beyond punishing law breakers — things like social safety nets and evening the playing field across social classes, then you're going to feel like someone is a heartless sociopath if you're talking to someone who was raised to expect the government not be involved in anything beyond law and order. And vice versa, if you think that the government should only be locking people up for breaking laws, you're going to feel like you're oppressed by a government that expects compensation for a bunch of services you never agreed to.
I think disagreements and compromises on these questions are necessary, there's no way around them, and people would be fine to negotiate on them. The problem is our conversations neglect that the questions even exist, jumping right into policy debates and judging people's morality based on their support for ideas that can become pretty abstract once they are being laid out as law. A liberal can support a law that'll help starving puppies get fed, and when a conservative votes no on it, the liberal will walk away thinking the conservative hates puppies and wants them to starve. But the conservative might love puppies even more than the liberal, dedicating their life to caring for them, but just fundamentally doesn't think that puppies should have to depend on the political whims of a government for their food, or object to a hidden amendment that starves kittens. They think the liberals are the ones who hate puppies by voting for someone else to solve the problem with the tax revenue of people who didn’t consent to a tax increase. I'm not saying either the liberal or conservative is right, or that either of them is helping puppies more than the other, I'm just saying that they are having different conversations, and walking away with judgments of each others' character instead of cultural definitions of government.
Now, how do we bring it back to yesterday's passage of Republicans' budget bill? Again, I think the conversation has gotten off track, to a catastrophic degree. You've got a Republican base of voters that prides itself on being against big government, but there's a cognitive dissonance, because the vast majority of government spending goes toward things they do not want cut, but they tend to only see government spending as wasteful if it's for something they don't personally benefit from. They haven't asked themselves what the role of government should be. And then Republican leaders repeatedly parroted the soundbite that the only people who would be losing their healthcare are "able bodied men playing video games in their mom's basement." They are “other” people who are freeloaders not deserving your generosity. Republican leaders think they can get away with it, even though that makes no sense: if people are young and able-bodied, they aren't draining Medicaid of funds, so kicking them off wouldn't be a cost-saving measure. The only way to save money on Medicaid is to kick people off who use it and need it. So, obviously, the political reality is about to become real for them.
The Mamdani victory shows there's an appetite for candidates who can articulate a clear vision of active government, but based on the endorsements, donations, and NY Times anti-endorsements, Democrats in power seem determined to suppress the energy needed to win elections. By forcing establishment figures like Cuomo onto voters who've already rejected that approach, Democratic leadership is essentially choosing to fight on cultural terms that don't resonate with the very people who should be their natural allies. If Democrats continue this pattern — offering up candidates who embody the disconnected elite that so many Americans distrust — they'll manage to turn what should be a slam-dunk electoral advantage into another cycle of frustrating stalemate. Perpetual nail-biter elections with democracy on the ballot. The Republican budget mess gives Democrats a perfect opening to make the case for why government should help people, but only if they're willing to have that deeper conversation about the ideal function of government in the first place.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your 2nd to last paragraph. The cognitive dissonance (or what I'd be likely to call hypocrisy) is what really infuriates a lot of people. If the arguments about big government vs small government were done in good faith, I think compromise could be met. However, it's not. Just like the Republican Party has used abortion as a way to galvanize people without caring one bit about human life (obviously), they are using "small government" talking points to take all of the money for themselves, while also growing government control over people. Just like the voters claim they don't want government involvement, while taking advantage of every government benefit they can.
Your point stands, and I actually really like looking at it that way. The puppy analogy was a really good one and made me think about politics in a new light. That just isn't where we are anymore, though. Hopefully we reach a point where we can genuinely talk about belief systems and the role of government, with groups of people who have integrity, good intensions, and self reflection. How do we build a population with good faith principle, though?
Re-reading what I wrote and I know there are a lot of run-on sentences and a few points I didn't quite articulate, but I'm glad it seems my main point came through! Puppies can help explain a lot. I often think about what we can do in our conversations to move us closer to good faith, and start from the beginning of our arguments to settle the premise of what we're arguing, instead of debating parallel to what the conversation is about, submitting evidence that proves our own point but misses the points that the people we are talking to are looking for. Lots of ideas for an ideal world, but no time to implement them. Someday I'll figure out how to find time for important things.
And you make a good point about there being not much difference between "cognitive dissonance" and "hypocrisy" other than the benefit of the doubt we're affording to people we disagree with. My choice on how to interpret people I disagree with probably has more to do with my blood sugar levels than the quality of their arguments. :) Or maybe it's my personal connection to them: public figures are much more responsible for hypocrisy than someone who I interpret as being duped by them. Interesting to think about.
Yes, that's exactly right. My state of mind influences how harshly I'm going to judge someone for having cognitive dissonance or being a hypocrite. I'm in HYPOCRITE mode today, I think I can safely say.
I've been taking care of my mom lately, so I'm living in my parents' home. My dad is an old-school Republican, he turned Democrat when Trump entered the picture. I've been noticing the particular areas that we won't budge on - and it's where we get instantly emotional.
For example, even though he believes Trump is the worst thing to happen to humanity, he can't stop himself from saying that Hillary would have been the most corrupt president and that she would have destroyed us. He hates the Clintons so much, and I do not like them, either, to be honest, but he's very emotional about it and can't think straight when they come to mind. He knows Clinton was an infinitely better choice than Trump, he was able to put that aside to vote for her, but he cannot turn off that emotional response, which makes her SEEM worse than he is to him. His rational mind knows better, but his emotional mind takes over every single time, and it's like he forgets. I worried it was a sexist thing for years, but he thinks Kamala is amazing, so it's not that.
And then I realize that I am the same with Bernie. I can't handle any criticism of him, and it's because I developed an emotional association with him that I can't figure out. For some reason, my dad doesn't like Bernie or his policies at all, so we have a lot of arguments about it.
I KNOW that if we were talking about almost anyone other than Clinton herself or Bernie himself, there would be no issue. So I try really hard to be accepting of people's emotional connection to political figures and policies. But I'm not good at it, because I'm willing to be self critical enough to know I'm having an emotional reaction. Good faith discussions require two people willing to be self aware and have decent intentions - just like any relationship. When it's just one person, it falls apart.
You articulated your point well. In my all too human way, I hyper focused on just one part of it and couldn't let go :).
This is so interesting. I think your dad's relationship with Hillary and your relationship with Bernie are great examples of how we get wrapped up in emotion, making figuring out the root of that emotion such a huge challenge. When I was talking about us first figuring out and outlining what we feel like the government should be responsible for before getting into policy discussions, that's kind of mirrored here: with you two wrapping up your political philosophies into specific people and their policies instead of the easier-to-define principles they represent. But then again I think what I was explaining isn't quite sufficient to explain the dynamic between you and your dad, right?
I'm sure you've both had conversations about the basis for your politics and what the government should or shouldn't intervene with. But it's when Hillary or Bernie get discussed that it gets personal. Is it because they (Hillary and Bernie) have become proxies for what you believe in, and all the stress and pain that's been inflicted on this country since they were rejected (by voters for Hillary and by party politics for Bernie)? So when your dad scoffs at commie socialists, it feels like he's scoffing at you, that sort of thing? Juggling all that while taking care of your mom has gotta be tough sometimes. Although it could be worse, right? Like, if they were happy with this administration...
Yes, that is definitely what's going on. Something about each one is standing in for deeper issues going on within us. To add to what you have already said (which is correct), I do not like Bernie's policies being misrepresented and misunderstood (whether it's willful or not). What my dad thinks he stands for, he does not stand for. He's still buying into narratives set forth a decade ago. I have realized that I am not easily triggered by people disliking me, being annoyed by me, disliking things about me (that are real), but when I am accused of things I am not, or that I did not do, or when negative traits are projected onto me, then I am ANGRY and lose my mind. It is a massive trigger for me. Because Bernie, as a politician and person, speaks quite deeply to the empathy and sense of justice and fairness in me, I have both the "connection," as if I'm being attacked, but also the trigger of him (and me) being accused of things that are not true.
I haven't figured out what my dad's triggers in this particular instance are. I am guessing (pure conjecture) that he bonded with his work buddies over Clinton hatred back in the day. Since he is on the spectrum, and doesn't easily make friends, it's so hard to let that go. So even if he knows better, there is a massive emotional response to giving the Clintons any credit.
On the whole, things are perfectly fine around here. We don't talk about those two often. And I'm not quite sure anyone hates Trump as much as my dad, so when we're all overwhelmed, we have a great time ranting and venting. Policy-wise, we all agree. Interestingly, even when he was a proud Republican and I was a proud Democrat, if we talked long enough, we ALWAYS agreed on policy and values. Interesting how that worked out :). But we were patient enough to get there. What he refused to fully accept is that his party was acting against what he valued. Maybe I did in those days, too. And of course we respect each other, so it never, ever went to attack mode. My mom has always approached her liberalism differently than most, as a devout Catholic. So we also had differences in the way we saw things, but agreed with basic values.
When I began engaging with others, for Bernie's campaign and outside of it, I had this history with my parents, and I thought that if we were patient and kind and genuinely interested, the discussions would be interesting and satisfying. But.... ummmm.... I think we all know how that generally goes. And I've lost my patience now, sadly, and my memory for facts and details.
My main takeaway here is that I'm so proud to have come from a family of integrity, where we were all allowed to be different but come together with discussions that got to the heart of the matter. I am actually so proud of my dad that he was raised in an itty bitty conservative Idaho town, he was taught to be racist, homophobic, republican at all costs, hate women, destroy the earth (because, why, exactly?), and he always grows. Whenever he's presented with a real human, a real situation, he always sheds his conditioning to be accepting, even if it's painful for him sometimes. Even with the glitches. My mom is just a naturally loving and accepting person, so I had that all of the time, too. She's had to work really hard to overcome her internalized misogyny, as have I.
My second takeaway is that because of all this, I SHOULD be as accepting and patient as you are when approaching others. That is my work to do. I'm very angry and afraid and I can't shed it right now.
Again, thank you for your interest in these dynamics. And for doing the work!
Thanks Timothy. I have family and friends who are very diversified. Some celebrating. Some in despair. I’ve been realizing that how people are reacting depends on what’s important to them, what they are focused on, and where they get their information. We really need to LISTEN to each other.
Sharon’s article today was helpful in adding another layer of what keeps us from understanding each other.
Thanks Sarah Jane! I noticed a wide array of reactions on my newsfeed, and decided to spend this morning doing a little informal science. A random sampling of my Facebook newsfeed. I thought it was interesting.
A retired schoolteacher from Omaha: "I’m just exhausted today…..today when all of us should be celebrating this great country…..maybe tomorrow we can all pick our hearts up and continue to fight for the disenfranchised…..today…..today we are allowed to weep for this mess we’re living in.😢God is watching……"
An Iowan living in Los Angeles who was fervently for Bernie in 2017 and is just as fervent for Trump in 2025: "My political recalibration—if it were to come at all—couldn’t have come at a better time. Instead of my head exploding, I’m popping champagne. For a million reasons, not the least of which is mental health, I give this a Highly Recommend."
A gay man from Staten Island who posted a screenshot of someone with MAGA in their username who says they're scared about losing their Medicaid coverage: "Here's hoping this c*nt goes blind!! And that every other racist asshole who votes republican ends up homeless from medial debt."
A straight man who moved from small-town Illinois to Los Angeles for college: "The number of votes the Big Beautiful Bill passed by: 2. The number of Democratic members who died in office this year: 3. It’s not assassinations, it’s the do-nothing democratic leadership that is chock full of geriatrics, 3 of which died in office and would have blocked this bill."
Those were just the posts that showed up first every time I refreshed the feed. It seemed a little bit slanted toward people not being a fan of this bill, which reflects what the polling says about it. So then I checked, intentionally looking at the profiles of my friends and relatives who relentlessly posted critiques of the government from 2021 through 2024. You're not gonna believe it! Totally silent on this bill and politics in general since November. Politics is now irrelevant to their online presence. Interesting...
"Today we’re celebrating July 4th with my mom’s potato salad. It’s one of a handful of recipes that I managed to get before she passed."
"First camping trip of the season in the books."
"If you’re ever in Rhode Island give my daughter and son in law’s restaurant a try."
I have the same question! I do see some talking points from Republicans claiming that the net effect will be positive for some people who are not wealthy... So I think there are people who will believe this is a benefit for people like them, because that's what those they trust are telling them.
On social media, I see an official account putting this out there: "Social Security Applauds passage of legislation providing historic tax relief to seniors."
Timothy! I got the same email from the Real Social Security Administration! I could not believe it. I did not want to believe it. It was too scary.
But now I see your post, and I know it’s real. This is the scariest part of this regime. Everyone and everything we’ve known and trusted is lying to us and actively working to undermine us. We can no longer believe nor trust the SSA, CDC, etc.
This scares me more than anything. We are no longer standing on solid ground.
I got the email too! I was honestly afraid to open it at first as it's historically very rare to get unsolicited correspondence from the SSA. But sure enough, praising the passage of the bill and how great the administration is 🤦🏼♀️
The truth about What’s Misleading or Missing in the email:
1. It's not a permanent removal of Social Security taxes, but a temporary deduction that expires in 2028.
(The tax cuts for the wealthy on the other hand, were made permanent)
2. Not all beneficiaries are covered:
The deduction only applies to those 65 and older—younger recipients (even full retirees aged 62–64) are excluded .
It phases out at higher incomes (beginning $75K single / $150K joint; fully phased at $175K/$250K) .
Even with the deduction, about 24 million beneficiaries will still pay some federal tax on their benefits.
The SSA's statement highlights some level of tax relief for some beneficiaries. However, calling it a “landmark... eliminates” might imply something broader and more permanent than what the law actually provides. It’s true the measure delivers some relief and to some, but it's:
Temporary (expires in 2028)
Age-limited
Income-limited
This statement ignored: Impact on Social Security's Long-Term Solvency
This is the elephant in the room — and it’s completely ignored in the SSA’s messaging.
Loss of Revenue from Taxation of Benefits
Currently: About half of all Social Security beneficiaries pay federal taxes on a portion of their benefits.
These taxes contribute directly to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
In 2022, $48.6 billion was collected through this mechanism alone.
Under the new law: With the deduction eliminating tax liability for most low-to-middle-income seniors, the Treasury will collect billions less.
That doesn’t just hit the federal budget — it affects the SSA’s own revenue pipeline.
Trust Fund Depletion Timeline
Before this law, the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was already projected to be insolvent by 2033, according to the 2024 SSA Trustees Report.
This law: Accelerates that timeline by shrinking tax inflows.
Introduces no corresponding revenue offset to stabilize or replenish the fund.
Politically blocks efforts to raise taxes or lift the payroll tax cap (currently capped at ~$168,600 in income).
All of this opens the door to revitalize conversations about privatization of Social security fund or potentially even elimination. It sets the foundation for those arguments and ultimately it is a step forward to make it easier to eliminate the programs completely.
Woodward’s book remains on my to be read list. I really need to clone myself so I can read more! It’s interesting how true some of the stories of Tidewater ring for me. I was born in one town in Tidewater and moved to another when I was young. My family has lived here in this town for almost 35 years now. We’re still called ‘come heres’ because we were not ‘born here’.
A former colleague from South Carolina (and a historian) visited Barbados recently for a book she is writing. She shared her trip in photos. One story she shared was how George Washington travelled with his brother there when his brother had tuberculosis (because everything is tuberculosis!). Washington got smallpox during his trip and survived. What would the Revolutionary War have looked like if he had not been immune? And if he did not push for inoculation?
As a progressive New Yorker, I am so disheartened by Mamdani’s win. The left criticizes the right for electing unqualified people (Trump, Hegseth, that 22 year old grocery guy turned anti-terrorism director) on a cult of personality, and we turned around and did just that. There was a HUGE slate of people to choose from whose platforms differed only from Mamdani’s in the practicalities of governing a city, and yet we chose someone whose only work experience was with his mom, and who, upon being elected to the assembly promptly launched and then killed his own free bus pilot program because he was petulant and unable to compromise. He seems so clearly focused only on his own celebrity (not unlike Eric Adams, from under whose leadership we’re hoping to be released) and yet he’s waltzing into office on slogans like “Hot Girls Vote for Zohran” (being less a “hot girl” and more a “discerning woman,” myself, I did not vote for him.)
It’s given me a lot of empathy for reasonable republicans in 2016 who saw through MAGA but saw logic and reason highjacked in favor of magical thinking and simmering resentments.
I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad thing that he doesn't have experience. The role of mayor is like the role of president. Your most important job is to communicate your vision. Your second most important job is to get the right group of people to do the things that support your vision. Being the head of the executive branch isn't like being the head of a functioning government department. Also, I don't think that AOC had much experience before becoming a representative, yet she's very good at it in my opinion. Part of the reason people are voting for outsiders, whether it's Trump or Mandani, is because the insiders have appeared to have been sitting on their thumbs for decades. Not that it's necessarily reality (obstructionism by one side has been the main reason), but experience hasn't meant effectiveness.
A representative role is very different than an executive role.
On the most basic level, no company would hire a CEO that had never had a job to oversee 300,000 employees, which is how many employees the mayor of NYC has, without even considering the 8.26 million people who live in this city and need things from the mayor. Then you consider Mamdani’s actual proposals and ideas, many of which aren’t even in the power of the mayor - he CAN’T create a billionaire tax, that’s a state function and it will never pass through governor’s office. Arresting Netanyahu if he comes to NYC would be a federal function and thus, were he to pull it off, would be tantamount to kidnapping the leader of a foreign nation. Public servants do need to understand how things work and that comes from experience and not just saying whatever is exciting to people to get elected. You can’t deliver on your vision unless you can do it within the system.
I understand that people are frustrated and want outsiders because the insiders are slow and boring but some of the reason they are that way is because bureaucracy is slow and boring. You can’t just go in with a vision and make it so. They have to work in a system that (ideally, present president excepted) limits their power.
Definitely Brad Lander. Stringer and Myrie were also great options. Lander did a cross endorsement with Mamdani but that didn’t change my feelings about Mamdani. It seemed Lander just recognized that Mamdani had the groundswell behind him. There was also the typical NY politics of it all - all of them trying to block out Cuomo - Democrats have been trying to run him out of politics for years for reasons legitimate and simply political and it just smacked to me of that.
While I do not know much about Mamdani, or all his political views, I think this may be a good thing. I’m glad Cuomo lost. He has shown a lack of morals and character, 2 of the most important things every candidate should have. I’m tired of the same small group of people just ping ponging from political position to political position. We need term limits, age limits and fresh ideas. Maybe some of them won’t work, but doing the same thing over and over hasn’t worked either. We are at a crossroads in our country and we need to be better. We need to be kind and inclusive, and fight for all people’s rights no matter the color of their skin, religious beliefs or gender. We will never be a perfect country, but we can do better.
This was my takeaway after following this for months, too. Mamdani has been coming across to me as someone very interested in performance and celebrity (he's great at it - his videos are incredibly entertaining), and I just don't know much else about him. Whether he has the integrity to follow through on his promises and do the right things? I have no idea. It's just been made abundantly clear that Cuomo has no integrity and his brand of politician needs to go away for good.
The more long term good news of Mamdani's win, I think, is that a record number of people signed up to begin the process of running for local office across the country because of it. He ignited hope that change can happen. I pray he doesn't screw up so badly that it ruins that hope and motivation of others.
While it is true Irish and Scottish immigrants settled in Appalachia, my family included (they immigrated from Ireland during the Famine), they were not the only people to move to the area. I would also recommend reading What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia by Elizabeth Catte. Written in response to JD Vance’s memoir (who, by the way, did not grow up in Appalachia at all), it breaks down a lot of stereotypes and stigmas about the region. Many of the things Vance stated as facts in his book are based on racist ideas and eugenics. Very dangerous vein of thought.
Mamdani’s win actually gave me hope because he connected with and therefore turned out young voters. He ran as a dem but also under the Working Families Party banner (because you can do that in NY and several other states.) I live in a deep red state where we have one of the youngest population in terms of families but our GOP supermajority legislators are 70% old white and male ie they don’t reflect their voters and we’re gerrymandered up the wazoo. Bring on the midterms so we can bring about a more ‘purple’ state.
Love this!! American Nations is such an interesting read. It gives so much insight and perspective to the patchwork that is America. Great article and reminder of where we came from and how we got here.
Wow, went straight to Alibris to order this book! This is exactly what I needed to read this July Fourth. My mind is so full of "monkey chatter" lately. I need distractions. My Big Bear eaglets have possibly left the habitat, so sadly there went that. But this read had me fascinated! Thank you, Sharon! Now I need to dive deeper into this. Just got my Ancestry results back, so maybe that can shed some light too as far as immigrations/migrations go. Chin up! Elbows up! and all that.
Very interesting to hear about the different cultures and how they shape the US today. Thank you for the article.
Happy 4th of July everyone. I hope, despite everything that's going on, that you all have as great of a day as possible...and don't have to work like I do lol
This was fascinating and I finally was able to connect some thoughts that have been floating around my head for a while.
One thing though - does Mamdani want people to rely on government programs, or is he trying to create a culture where people know they can rely on government programs if they need them? One creates a new form of control, the other creates freedom by relieving stressors.
While interesting, there are many cracks (rips?) in this fabric of America. I live in Texas, which is a part of the “Greater Appalachia” according to Woodard. Over the last decade I have seen a few things that make me think this is more of a rear view mirror than windshield idea. I have seen a city and community that looks more like New York than Texas. We just elected a Muslim mayor (our city keeps mayoral races non partisan.) We successfully defeated Mom’s for Liberty school board candidates. We fly our Pride flags, Palestine flags, and support our local city library. Our school district sends home important papers in multiple languages, and our neighbors run a refugee outreach center. I’ve also seen Republicans in Texas do whatever they can to change the rules to win and maintain power, all while campaigning to fix problems that they’ve created. I’ve seen billionaires buy our governor and help primary opponents to get his school voucher bill passed, that was a majority of Texans did not approve of. Tarrant county is currently going through redistricting/gerrymandering issues, and Trump himself called on our governor to redraw (aka gerrymander) the Dallas area district so Rep Jasmine Crockett cannot win. Our voter ID laws contribute to some of the worst voter suppression. The Republican’s behavior can be explained by this cultural view of America’s past, but America’s present and future is breaking through, and seeing a candidate like Mamdani succeed (even so far away in New York) is going to appeal to many of us who are more than willing to rip this old fabric to shreds.
Agreed. And Colorado lumped together with Utah and Idaho? Only if you consider the rural-urban split in all 3 states.
Also, this type of book has been written before. The Nine Nations of North America comes to mind. That doesn’t make it bad, just not a new concept.
This explains A LOT. Thank you. Today (July 4) I am celebrating the American dream as set forth by the Declaration of Independence. I am not ready to let the dream die. Warmest regards and may we all maintain hope.
This is a fascinating summary of who we are and how we make some of our decisions on an unconscious level, influenced by our surrounding culture. I loved every minute of reading it. Thank you, Rebecca and Sharon! Happy 4th!!
It makes me think about what frustrates me most about political conversations: the fact that we're all having different conversations from each other, but talking as though we are discussing the same thing. The fundamental question we need to answer first, but almost always skip over: what do we expect the role of government to be? If you think it should have a role beyond punishing law breakers — things like social safety nets and evening the playing field across social classes, then you're going to feel like someone is a heartless sociopath if you're talking to someone who was raised to expect the government not be involved in anything beyond law and order. And vice versa, if you think that the government should only be locking people up for breaking laws, you're going to feel like you're oppressed by a government that expects compensation for a bunch of services you never agreed to.
I think disagreements and compromises on these questions are necessary, there's no way around them, and people would be fine to negotiate on them. The problem is our conversations neglect that the questions even exist, jumping right into policy debates and judging people's morality based on their support for ideas that can become pretty abstract once they are being laid out as law. A liberal can support a law that'll help starving puppies get fed, and when a conservative votes no on it, the liberal will walk away thinking the conservative hates puppies and wants them to starve. But the conservative might love puppies even more than the liberal, dedicating their life to caring for them, but just fundamentally doesn't think that puppies should have to depend on the political whims of a government for their food, or object to a hidden amendment that starves kittens. They think the liberals are the ones who hate puppies by voting for someone else to solve the problem with the tax revenue of people who didn’t consent to a tax increase. I'm not saying either the liberal or conservative is right, or that either of them is helping puppies more than the other, I'm just saying that they are having different conversations, and walking away with judgments of each others' character instead of cultural definitions of government.
Now, how do we bring it back to yesterday's passage of Republicans' budget bill? Again, I think the conversation has gotten off track, to a catastrophic degree. You've got a Republican base of voters that prides itself on being against big government, but there's a cognitive dissonance, because the vast majority of government spending goes toward things they do not want cut, but they tend to only see government spending as wasteful if it's for something they don't personally benefit from. They haven't asked themselves what the role of government should be. And then Republican leaders repeatedly parroted the soundbite that the only people who would be losing their healthcare are "able bodied men playing video games in their mom's basement." They are “other” people who are freeloaders not deserving your generosity. Republican leaders think they can get away with it, even though that makes no sense: if people are young and able-bodied, they aren't draining Medicaid of funds, so kicking them off wouldn't be a cost-saving measure. The only way to save money on Medicaid is to kick people off who use it and need it. So, obviously, the political reality is about to become real for them.
The Mamdani victory shows there's an appetite for candidates who can articulate a clear vision of active government, but based on the endorsements, donations, and NY Times anti-endorsements, Democrats in power seem determined to suppress the energy needed to win elections. By forcing establishment figures like Cuomo onto voters who've already rejected that approach, Democratic leadership is essentially choosing to fight on cultural terms that don't resonate with the very people who should be their natural allies. If Democrats continue this pattern — offering up candidates who embody the disconnected elite that so many Americans distrust — they'll manage to turn what should be a slam-dunk electoral advantage into another cycle of frustrating stalemate. Perpetual nail-biter elections with democracy on the ballot. The Republican budget mess gives Democrats a perfect opening to make the case for why government should help people, but only if they're willing to have that deeper conversation about the ideal function of government in the first place.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your 2nd to last paragraph. The cognitive dissonance (or what I'd be likely to call hypocrisy) is what really infuriates a lot of people. If the arguments about big government vs small government were done in good faith, I think compromise could be met. However, it's not. Just like the Republican Party has used abortion as a way to galvanize people without caring one bit about human life (obviously), they are using "small government" talking points to take all of the money for themselves, while also growing government control over people. Just like the voters claim they don't want government involvement, while taking advantage of every government benefit they can.
Your point stands, and I actually really like looking at it that way. The puppy analogy was a really good one and made me think about politics in a new light. That just isn't where we are anymore, though. Hopefully we reach a point where we can genuinely talk about belief systems and the role of government, with groups of people who have integrity, good intensions, and self reflection. How do we build a population with good faith principle, though?
Re-reading what I wrote and I know there are a lot of run-on sentences and a few points I didn't quite articulate, but I'm glad it seems my main point came through! Puppies can help explain a lot. I often think about what we can do in our conversations to move us closer to good faith, and start from the beginning of our arguments to settle the premise of what we're arguing, instead of debating parallel to what the conversation is about, submitting evidence that proves our own point but misses the points that the people we are talking to are looking for. Lots of ideas for an ideal world, but no time to implement them. Someday I'll figure out how to find time for important things.
And you make a good point about there being not much difference between "cognitive dissonance" and "hypocrisy" other than the benefit of the doubt we're affording to people we disagree with. My choice on how to interpret people I disagree with probably has more to do with my blood sugar levels than the quality of their arguments. :) Or maybe it's my personal connection to them: public figures are much more responsible for hypocrisy than someone who I interpret as being duped by them. Interesting to think about.
Yes, that's exactly right. My state of mind influences how harshly I'm going to judge someone for having cognitive dissonance or being a hypocrite. I'm in HYPOCRITE mode today, I think I can safely say.
I've been taking care of my mom lately, so I'm living in my parents' home. My dad is an old-school Republican, he turned Democrat when Trump entered the picture. I've been noticing the particular areas that we won't budge on - and it's where we get instantly emotional.
For example, even though he believes Trump is the worst thing to happen to humanity, he can't stop himself from saying that Hillary would have been the most corrupt president and that she would have destroyed us. He hates the Clintons so much, and I do not like them, either, to be honest, but he's very emotional about it and can't think straight when they come to mind. He knows Clinton was an infinitely better choice than Trump, he was able to put that aside to vote for her, but he cannot turn off that emotional response, which makes her SEEM worse than he is to him. His rational mind knows better, but his emotional mind takes over every single time, and it's like he forgets. I worried it was a sexist thing for years, but he thinks Kamala is amazing, so it's not that.
And then I realize that I am the same with Bernie. I can't handle any criticism of him, and it's because I developed an emotional association with him that I can't figure out. For some reason, my dad doesn't like Bernie or his policies at all, so we have a lot of arguments about it.
I KNOW that if we were talking about almost anyone other than Clinton herself or Bernie himself, there would be no issue. So I try really hard to be accepting of people's emotional connection to political figures and policies. But I'm not good at it, because I'm willing to be self critical enough to know I'm having an emotional reaction. Good faith discussions require two people willing to be self aware and have decent intentions - just like any relationship. When it's just one person, it falls apart.
You articulated your point well. In my all too human way, I hyper focused on just one part of it and couldn't let go :).
This is so interesting. I think your dad's relationship with Hillary and your relationship with Bernie are great examples of how we get wrapped up in emotion, making figuring out the root of that emotion such a huge challenge. When I was talking about us first figuring out and outlining what we feel like the government should be responsible for before getting into policy discussions, that's kind of mirrored here: with you two wrapping up your political philosophies into specific people and their policies instead of the easier-to-define principles they represent. But then again I think what I was explaining isn't quite sufficient to explain the dynamic between you and your dad, right?
I'm sure you've both had conversations about the basis for your politics and what the government should or shouldn't intervene with. But it's when Hillary or Bernie get discussed that it gets personal. Is it because they (Hillary and Bernie) have become proxies for what you believe in, and all the stress and pain that's been inflicted on this country since they were rejected (by voters for Hillary and by party politics for Bernie)? So when your dad scoffs at commie socialists, it feels like he's scoffing at you, that sort of thing? Juggling all that while taking care of your mom has gotta be tough sometimes. Although it could be worse, right? Like, if they were happy with this administration...
Yes, that is definitely what's going on. Something about each one is standing in for deeper issues going on within us. To add to what you have already said (which is correct), I do not like Bernie's policies being misrepresented and misunderstood (whether it's willful or not). What my dad thinks he stands for, he does not stand for. He's still buying into narratives set forth a decade ago. I have realized that I am not easily triggered by people disliking me, being annoyed by me, disliking things about me (that are real), but when I am accused of things I am not, or that I did not do, or when negative traits are projected onto me, then I am ANGRY and lose my mind. It is a massive trigger for me. Because Bernie, as a politician and person, speaks quite deeply to the empathy and sense of justice and fairness in me, I have both the "connection," as if I'm being attacked, but also the trigger of him (and me) being accused of things that are not true.
I haven't figured out what my dad's triggers in this particular instance are. I am guessing (pure conjecture) that he bonded with his work buddies over Clinton hatred back in the day. Since he is on the spectrum, and doesn't easily make friends, it's so hard to let that go. So even if he knows better, there is a massive emotional response to giving the Clintons any credit.
On the whole, things are perfectly fine around here. We don't talk about those two often. And I'm not quite sure anyone hates Trump as much as my dad, so when we're all overwhelmed, we have a great time ranting and venting. Policy-wise, we all agree. Interestingly, even when he was a proud Republican and I was a proud Democrat, if we talked long enough, we ALWAYS agreed on policy and values. Interesting how that worked out :). But we were patient enough to get there. What he refused to fully accept is that his party was acting against what he valued. Maybe I did in those days, too. And of course we respect each other, so it never, ever went to attack mode. My mom has always approached her liberalism differently than most, as a devout Catholic. So we also had differences in the way we saw things, but agreed with basic values.
When I began engaging with others, for Bernie's campaign and outside of it, I had this history with my parents, and I thought that if we were patient and kind and genuinely interested, the discussions would be interesting and satisfying. But.... ummmm.... I think we all know how that generally goes. And I've lost my patience now, sadly, and my memory for facts and details.
My main takeaway here is that I'm so proud to have come from a family of integrity, where we were all allowed to be different but come together with discussions that got to the heart of the matter. I am actually so proud of my dad that he was raised in an itty bitty conservative Idaho town, he was taught to be racist, homophobic, republican at all costs, hate women, destroy the earth (because, why, exactly?), and he always grows. Whenever he's presented with a real human, a real situation, he always sheds his conditioning to be accepting, even if it's painful for him sometimes. Even with the glitches. My mom is just a naturally loving and accepting person, so I had that all of the time, too. She's had to work really hard to overcome her internalized misogyny, as have I.
My second takeaway is that because of all this, I SHOULD be as accepting and patient as you are when approaching others. That is my work to do. I'm very angry and afraid and I can't shed it right now.
Again, thank you for your interest in these dynamics. And for doing the work!
Thanks Timothy. I have family and friends who are very diversified. Some celebrating. Some in despair. I’ve been realizing that how people are reacting depends on what’s important to them, what they are focused on, and where they get their information. We really need to LISTEN to each other.
Sharon’s article today was helpful in adding another layer of what keeps us from understanding each other.
Thanks Sarah Jane! I noticed a wide array of reactions on my newsfeed, and decided to spend this morning doing a little informal science. A random sampling of my Facebook newsfeed. I thought it was interesting.
A retired schoolteacher from Omaha: "I’m just exhausted today…..today when all of us should be celebrating this great country…..maybe tomorrow we can all pick our hearts up and continue to fight for the disenfranchised…..today…..today we are allowed to weep for this mess we’re living in.😢God is watching……"
An Iowan living in Los Angeles who was fervently for Bernie in 2017 and is just as fervent for Trump in 2025: "My political recalibration—if it were to come at all—couldn’t have come at a better time. Instead of my head exploding, I’m popping champagne. For a million reasons, not the least of which is mental health, I give this a Highly Recommend."
A gay man from Staten Island who posted a screenshot of someone with MAGA in their username who says they're scared about losing their Medicaid coverage: "Here's hoping this c*nt goes blind!! And that every other racist asshole who votes republican ends up homeless from medial debt."
A straight man who moved from small-town Illinois to Los Angeles for college: "The number of votes the Big Beautiful Bill passed by: 2. The number of Democratic members who died in office this year: 3. It’s not assassinations, it’s the do-nothing democratic leadership that is chock full of geriatrics, 3 of which died in office and would have blocked this bill."
Those were just the posts that showed up first every time I refreshed the feed. It seemed a little bit slanted toward people not being a fan of this bill, which reflects what the polling says about it. So then I checked, intentionally looking at the profiles of my friends and relatives who relentlessly posted critiques of the government from 2021 through 2024. You're not gonna believe it! Totally silent on this bill and politics in general since November. Politics is now irrelevant to their online presence. Interesting...
"Today we’re celebrating July 4th with my mom’s potato salad. It’s one of a handful of recipes that I managed to get before she passed."
"First camping trip of the season in the books."
"If you’re ever in Rhode Island give my daughter and son in law’s restaurant a try."
Not the point of your comment at all, but the last two quotes made me spit out my tea in laughter. Just not how I was expecting this to conclude :D
Sorry about that 😂
Every bit of laughter right now is a gift. Keyboard be damned!
Hi SJ…just wondering (to try to understand) do you know what the people you know that are celebrating what they are celebrating exactly?
I have the same question! I do see some talking points from Republicans claiming that the net effect will be positive for some people who are not wealthy... So I think there are people who will believe this is a benefit for people like them, because that's what those they trust are telling them.
On social media, I see an official account putting this out there: "Social Security Applauds passage of legislation providing historic tax relief to seniors."
Timothy! I got the same email from the Real Social Security Administration! I could not believe it. I did not want to believe it. It was too scary.
But now I see your post, and I know it’s real. This is the scariest part of this regime. Everyone and everything we’ve known and trusted is lying to us and actively working to undermine us. We can no longer believe nor trust the SSA, CDC, etc.
This scares me more than anything. We are no longer standing on solid ground.
I got the email too! I was honestly afraid to open it at first as it's historically very rare to get unsolicited correspondence from the SSA. But sure enough, praising the passage of the bill and how great the administration is 🤦🏼♀️
We cannot be too careful.
The truth about What’s Misleading or Missing in the email:
1. It's not a permanent removal of Social Security taxes, but a temporary deduction that expires in 2028.
(The tax cuts for the wealthy on the other hand, were made permanent)
2. Not all beneficiaries are covered:
The deduction only applies to those 65 and older—younger recipients (even full retirees aged 62–64) are excluded .
It phases out at higher incomes (beginning $75K single / $150K joint; fully phased at $175K/$250K) .
Even with the deduction, about 24 million beneficiaries will still pay some federal tax on their benefits.
The SSA's statement highlights some level of tax relief for some beneficiaries. However, calling it a “landmark... eliminates” might imply something broader and more permanent than what the law actually provides. It’s true the measure delivers some relief and to some, but it's:
Temporary (expires in 2028)
Age-limited
Income-limited
This statement ignored: Impact on Social Security's Long-Term Solvency
This is the elephant in the room — and it’s completely ignored in the SSA’s messaging.
Loss of Revenue from Taxation of Benefits
Currently: About half of all Social Security beneficiaries pay federal taxes on a portion of their benefits.
These taxes contribute directly to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
In 2022, $48.6 billion was collected through this mechanism alone.
Under the new law: With the deduction eliminating tax liability for most low-to-middle-income seniors, the Treasury will collect billions less.
That doesn’t just hit the federal budget — it affects the SSA’s own revenue pipeline.
Trust Fund Depletion Timeline
Before this law, the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was already projected to be insolvent by 2033, according to the 2024 SSA Trustees Report.
This law: Accelerates that timeline by shrinking tax inflows.
Introduces no corresponding revenue offset to stabilize or replenish the fund.
Politically blocks efforts to raise taxes or lift the payroll tax cap (currently capped at ~$168,600 in income).
All of this opens the door to revitalize conversations about privatization of Social security fund or potentially even elimination. It sets the foundation for those arguments and ultimately it is a step forward to make it easier to eliminate the programs completely.
Woodward’s book remains on my to be read list. I really need to clone myself so I can read more! It’s interesting how true some of the stories of Tidewater ring for me. I was born in one town in Tidewater and moved to another when I was young. My family has lived here in this town for almost 35 years now. We’re still called ‘come heres’ because we were not ‘born here’.
A former colleague from South Carolina (and a historian) visited Barbados recently for a book she is writing. She shared her trip in photos. One story she shared was how George Washington travelled with his brother there when his brother had tuberculosis (because everything is tuberculosis!). Washington got smallpox during his trip and survived. What would the Revolutionary War have looked like if he had not been immune? And if he did not push for inoculation?
Sharon- I read this book several years ago. I think you recommended it? It reframed much of US politics and culture for me. It is an excellent read.
As a progressive New Yorker, I am so disheartened by Mamdani’s win. The left criticizes the right for electing unqualified people (Trump, Hegseth, that 22 year old grocery guy turned anti-terrorism director) on a cult of personality, and we turned around and did just that. There was a HUGE slate of people to choose from whose platforms differed only from Mamdani’s in the practicalities of governing a city, and yet we chose someone whose only work experience was with his mom, and who, upon being elected to the assembly promptly launched and then killed his own free bus pilot program because he was petulant and unable to compromise. He seems so clearly focused only on his own celebrity (not unlike Eric Adams, from under whose leadership we’re hoping to be released) and yet he’s waltzing into office on slogans like “Hot Girls Vote for Zohran” (being less a “hot girl” and more a “discerning woman,” myself, I did not vote for him.)
It’s given me a lot of empathy for reasonable republicans in 2016 who saw through MAGA but saw logic and reason highjacked in favor of magical thinking and simmering resentments.
I'm not sure that it's necessarily a bad thing that he doesn't have experience. The role of mayor is like the role of president. Your most important job is to communicate your vision. Your second most important job is to get the right group of people to do the things that support your vision. Being the head of the executive branch isn't like being the head of a functioning government department. Also, I don't think that AOC had much experience before becoming a representative, yet she's very good at it in my opinion. Part of the reason people are voting for outsiders, whether it's Trump or Mandani, is because the insiders have appeared to have been sitting on their thumbs for decades. Not that it's necessarily reality (obstructionism by one side has been the main reason), but experience hasn't meant effectiveness.
A representative role is very different than an executive role.
On the most basic level, no company would hire a CEO that had never had a job to oversee 300,000 employees, which is how many employees the mayor of NYC has, without even considering the 8.26 million people who live in this city and need things from the mayor. Then you consider Mamdani’s actual proposals and ideas, many of which aren’t even in the power of the mayor - he CAN’T create a billionaire tax, that’s a state function and it will never pass through governor’s office. Arresting Netanyahu if he comes to NYC would be a federal function and thus, were he to pull it off, would be tantamount to kidnapping the leader of a foreign nation. Public servants do need to understand how things work and that comes from experience and not just saying whatever is exciting to people to get elected. You can’t deliver on your vision unless you can do it within the system.
I understand that people are frustrated and want outsiders because the insiders are slow and boring but some of the reason they are that way is because bureaucracy is slow and boring. You can’t just go in with a vision and make it so. They have to work in a system that (ideally, present president excepted) limits their power.
Who did you think was the best choice? I know a lot of progressives supported Brad landers.
Definitely Brad Lander. Stringer and Myrie were also great options. Lander did a cross endorsement with Mamdani but that didn’t change my feelings about Mamdani. It seemed Lander just recognized that Mamdani had the groundswell behind him. There was also the typical NY politics of it all - all of them trying to block out Cuomo - Democrats have been trying to run him out of politics for years for reasons legitimate and simply political and it just smacked to me of that.
While I do not know much about Mamdani, or all his political views, I think this may be a good thing. I’m glad Cuomo lost. He has shown a lack of morals and character, 2 of the most important things every candidate should have. I’m tired of the same small group of people just ping ponging from political position to political position. We need term limits, age limits and fresh ideas. Maybe some of them won’t work, but doing the same thing over and over hasn’t worked either. We are at a crossroads in our country and we need to be better. We need to be kind and inclusive, and fight for all people’s rights no matter the color of their skin, religious beliefs or gender. We will never be a perfect country, but we can do better.
This was my takeaway after following this for months, too. Mamdani has been coming across to me as someone very interested in performance and celebrity (he's great at it - his videos are incredibly entertaining), and I just don't know much else about him. Whether he has the integrity to follow through on his promises and do the right things? I have no idea. It's just been made abundantly clear that Cuomo has no integrity and his brand of politician needs to go away for good.
The more long term good news of Mamdani's win, I think, is that a record number of people signed up to begin the process of running for local office across the country because of it. He ignited hope that change can happen. I pray he doesn't screw up so badly that it ruins that hope and motivation of others.
While it is true Irish and Scottish immigrants settled in Appalachia, my family included (they immigrated from Ireland during the Famine), they were not the only people to move to the area. I would also recommend reading What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia by Elizabeth Catte. Written in response to JD Vance’s memoir (who, by the way, did not grow up in Appalachia at all), it breaks down a lot of stereotypes and stigmas about the region. Many of the things Vance stated as facts in his book are based on racist ideas and eugenics. Very dangerous vein of thought.
This was all new information for me, and so interesting! Thank you!
Mamdani’s win actually gave me hope because he connected with and therefore turned out young voters. He ran as a dem but also under the Working Families Party banner (because you can do that in NY and several other states.) I live in a deep red state where we have one of the youngest population in terms of families but our GOP supermajority legislators are 70% old white and male ie they don’t reflect their voters and we’re gerrymandered up the wazoo. Bring on the midterms so we can bring about a more ‘purple’ state.
I love NYC and I always say there’s no place like it…this piece gives that new meaning! Thank you!
Love this!! American Nations is such an interesting read. It gives so much insight and perspective to the patchwork that is America. Great article and reminder of where we came from and how we got here.
Wow, went straight to Alibris to order this book! This is exactly what I needed to read this July Fourth. My mind is so full of "monkey chatter" lately. I need distractions. My Big Bear eaglets have possibly left the habitat, so sadly there went that. But this read had me fascinated! Thank you, Sharon! Now I need to dive deeper into this. Just got my Ancestry results back, so maybe that can shed some light too as far as immigrations/migrations go. Chin up! Elbows up! and all that.
Very interesting to hear about the different cultures and how they shape the US today. Thank you for the article.
Happy 4th of July everyone. I hope, despite everything that's going on, that you all have as great of a day as possible...and don't have to work like I do lol
I really liked this piece and bought American Nations. Thank you!