Trump re-election puts U.S. anger center stage. Let's find a better way to cope.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Healthcare insurance is broken. How do we fix it?
The brazen murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in broad daylight in midtown Manhattan last year has open the floodgates to an outpouring of anger and frustration with the health insurance industry.
In 2003, just a few years after the Columbine shooting. My then-boyfriend and I were wearing tactical black and combat boots, our daily 'angry kid' uniform. A checkout lady at the Fernandina Beach Publix made a dismissive comment about it.
Standing under the swaying live oaks, I watched the red rage splotches creep up his neck. I realized that he chose tactical black every day to provoke someone. That day, it worked; here he was, fuming.
He was legitimately angry for years of bullying by our classmates, teachers and school administrators. But choosing anger limited him, too. He could hate and he could fight, but then he could never build anything new there.
Donald Trump resumed the presidency a few weeks ago. Whether I look at his supporters or detractors, I am reminded of watching someone I loved being consumed by weaponizing anger.
Polarization — visceral dislike of the other party — is a lot like a tactical black uniform. We can hate the other side and we can fight them, but we have a hard time building anything new with our neighbors.
Many Americans are legitimately angry that liberal politicians abandoned the working class for an elitist globalization strategy that gutted American manufacturing. Most Americans think their kids will be poorer than they are. Economic despair drives an opioid crisis that is swallowing whole towns.
Many folks affected by those crises voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2024. I attended the 2017 inauguration. There were a lot of men in tactical black.
I've worked with liberal organizers fighting for basic fairness and a lot of them are consumed by legitimate anger, too. They may be heirs to the traumas of slavery or Indigenous boarding schools, or hold personal pain of discrimination. Even those wearing rainbow flags and unicorn pins come equipped for battle.
I was also bullied in Fernandina, for being openly atheist in a Bible Belt town. However, as it dawned on me that my boyfriend was choosing anger, I realized I was, too. I could choose something different.
Since then, I've spent my adult life working with religious communities to make sure people of all faiths (and no faith) support one another's rights to thrive. No one should be bullied, attacked or harmed for their religious beliefs — not even my neighbors who once hurt me.
I'm proud of our American ideals of equality and freedom. Our democracy is battered, though, and I am downright angry about a lot of what's happening in the country now. I'd like to build something new with my neighbors and with others.
The most effective way to do that is not by deepening political trenches; it's collaborating with all kinds of neighbors on issues that matter to us. Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace advises that one strategy to rebuild a battered democracy is to 'Build a broad-based, multi-stranded, prodemocracy movement around a positive vision concretized in locally rooted action.'
What does that look like? A great first step is to meet people different from yourself — Interfaith America has online programs, while Braver Angels and +More Perfect Union work directly in Jacksonville. Try attending (or organizing) a 'citizens assembly,' where people participate in policy development.
Letters: Is a prominent vaccine denier the best pick to lead Health & Human Services?
Better Together America sponsors nonpartisan 'civic hubs' that help communities collaborate to solve big problems and hold elected officials accountable.
Research shows that diverse input makes better policy. Policy must account for human differences of all types if it is going to be both good and long-lasting. When we participate more directly in governance at any level, we build trust in the democratic system. When we work together toward common goals with people different from ourselves, we hate each other less.
As Trump begins his second term, Americans' anger at each other is front and center. Let's put that legitimate anger to better use.
Allison K. Ralph, Ph.D., is an expert in U.S. religious and ideological pluralism. A native of Fernandina Beach, she graduated from Douglas Anderson School of the Arts.
This guest column is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Times-Union. We welcome a diversity of opinions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The former New Jersey governor said Trump just wanted 'someone to blame' for poor job numbers.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie ripped President Donald Trump as a 'petulant child' on Sunday for his dramatic firing of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Christie said Trump just needed 'someone to blame because he won't take the responsibility himself' about the July jobs report, where the bureau reported the U.S. had only added a paltry 73,000 new jobs. The bureau also sharply revised down the May and June jobs reports, prompting Trump to fire BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer and accuse her of having 'RIGGED' the report to make him look bad. 'This is the action of a petulant child,' Christie said on ABC's This Week. "Like, 'You give me bad news, I fire the messenger.'"
New York Post
7 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump admin plans first ‘Golden Dome' test of space-based missile defense system: report
Pentagon officials are aiming to test President Trump's space-based Golden Dome missile defense system to safeguard the US in the fourth quarter of 2028, according to a report. That timeframe lines up with Trump's ambitious goal to 'have it done in three years' and comes amid pitches from defense contractors to score coveted contracts to develop the cutting-edge system. 'They want a win to point to in November [2028],' a defense official told CNN. 'And DoD [Department of Defense] wants to avoid anything they perceive will slow them down.' Advertisement The test, which will be conducted by the Missile Defense Agency, is expected to be called FTI-X, which stands for 'Flight Test Integrated,' in a nod to how it will assess the Golden Dome's vast array of sensors and weapons systems, according to the report. Development of the state-of-the-art missile defense system is expected to cost about $175 billion, according to Trump, who tapped Gen. Michael Guetlein, vice chair of operations at the Space Force, to oversee the ambitious project in May. 4 President Trump wants the US to develop a state-of-the-art missile defense system to protect the homeland from advanced attacks. Getty Images Advertisement 4 The Golden Dome system is intended to safeguard the colossal continental US. AP Congress has already allocated $25 billion in funding for the Golden Dome in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law last month. Military officials have explored space-based missile defense technologies for decades, including during Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program, also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Space-based missile defense technology can be advantageous because it can help thwart an enemy missile much earlier in its trajectory than other technologies that the US currently has in its arsenal. Advertisement It can also reduce geographical barriers and catch certain types of enemy missiles at a stage when they are slower and easier to intercept. However, there are many drawbacks. The US would need to make significant technological advances to develop that system, which is likely to be very costly and could entice other countries to weaponize space. 4 Skeptics have raised questions about whether the Golden Dome can be completed on time and within the budget President Trump laid out. Getty Images The defense official called it a 'hard problem, and technically very risky,' CNN reported. Advertisement 'The possible number of satellites needed to achieve a probability of engagement success is going to be very high, given the time and area needed to cover the continental United States,' the defense official said. Plans for the test in 2028 are expected to be 'phase one' of the project. A deluge of defense contractors and other private companies have been jockeying for contracts to help develop the massive defense system. Precise details of how the Golden Dome system will function are not fully known. Trump has taken inspiration from Israel's feted Iron Dome system, which helps defend populated areas from short-range attacks. Trump's plans would encompass much more sophisticated missiles, such as ballistic and hypersonic missiles, that may potentially be fired off from much more distant locations than what Iron Dome defends against. 'Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world,' Trump teased in May. 4 Precise details about how the Golden Dome system will function are not clear. Getty Images Guetlein has admitted that the Pentagon faces enormous challenges in successfully completing the project. Advertisement 'I think the real technical challenge will be building of the space-based interceptor,' Guetlein said at a summit last month. 'That technology exists, I believe. I believe we have proven every element of the physics, that we can make it work.' 'What we have not proven is, first, can I do it economically, and then second, can I do it at scale? Can I build enough satellites to get after the threat? Can I expand the industrial base fast enough to build those satellites?' The initiative comes amid advancements in the American space industry, with tycoons such as Elon Musk working to bring down the costs of launching satellites. The Defense Department didn't reply to a request for comment Sunday.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most education reformers have no idea what parents and kids want — and they don't care
Most education reformers — especially those interested in low-income communities — rightly focus on the needs and interests of students, whether they are discussing short-term outcomes like standardized testing results, or longer term results like rates of college acceptance and graduation. But the most important question they should be asking is: What do the parents in these communities want for their children? What do their extended family, mentors and pastors want? Unfortunately, even the best-intentioned reformers rarely entertain this question. Parents are the most important stakeholders in matters of education after the children themselves, yet reformers' ideological and emotional interests consistently take precedence over those of the parents and the local community. All too often, the education of poor or marginalized children gets lost in ideological battles between groups of elites who are completely removed from the communities they purport to defend. Elitist social justice initiatives — such as tossing out commonsense academic and behavioral standards because of supposed racial justice concerns — are a prime example of this 'soft bigotry of low expectations.' Is it acceptable to lower standards for certain children even if their parents want them to be held to a higher standard? Respect and consideration of parental priorities is one of the major reasons that indigenous, community-oriented and community-generated educational projects produce objectively excellent and even superior outcomes to top-down interventions from reformers outside the community. Take the Rosenwald schools: Booker T. Washington of the Tuskegee Institute and Julius Rosenwald, then-president of Sears Roebuck, joined to create one of the most remarkable educational successes of American history — yet remarkably few people know that they ever existed. Noting the dire lack of funding for education of Black children in the Jim Crow-era South, the Rosenwald Fund contributed $4.3 million — matched and exceeded by $4.7 million raised by Black communities themselves — to build over 5,000 schools, shops and associated homes across the segregated South. The Rosenwald schools were both very successful and indigenous projects: The seed money empowered local men, women and children to narrow the racial literacy gap in the Jim Crow-era American South by a stunning 40 percent. Within a generation, a three-year racial education gap shrank to well under a year. These highly localized, community-driven projects succeeded in the face of widespread, bitter discrimination. A modern-day example of indigenously led excellence can be seen in the Piney Woods School, a challenging preparatory school serving underprivileged children that was founded by Laurence Clifton Jones in 1909. Piney Woods serves a student body that wouldn't otherwise have access to a high-quality education, and relies largely on the generosity of donors to fund the scholarships for many of those who attend. But these kids, and their families, don't want a handout. They don't want low expectations. They want a challenge. And a challenge is what they receive. The school emphasizes self-responsibility, self-government and empowerment from within the communities and families it serves rather than from outside or 'above' them. Every student commits to working an on-campus job — in fact, the bulk of the campus buildings were built by students themselves. And their families donate or contribute to the school. They aren't looking to be accommodated or coddled. They don't want to be excused, and never have — even in the face of clear racism. There is a cautionary tale of reform, however, and it is the charter school movement. Charter schools are an increasingly common and often promising mode of educational reform, but they often flounder on the simple fact that reformers eventually rely on politics, rather than community interests, to guide their decisions. Former inner-city public school teacher Robert Pondiscio, in his recent review of Steve Wilson's book 'The Lost Decade,' briefly recounts the rise and fall of the 'no excuses' charter school model. In its ascendant years, the model allowed urban and underprivileged students to excel beyond anyone's expectations. But then it failed, catastrophically, under the growing weight of social justice culture. The schools that offered an irreplaceable chance at academic excellence — and long-term professional success — to Black students all over the country were sabotaged by the anxieties of political elites locked in pointless ideological battles over 'whiteness.' White guilt became more important than Black excellence. These charter schools abandoned the 'no excuses' standards that had helped lift students up from disadvantaged backgrounds as outdated or racist, replacing them with 'equity' initiatives that are leading today to low scores and low achievement. But no one asked the community leaders, who stand to gain or lose the most, if they were on board with these changes. Parents are stakeholders. Children are stakeholders. Siblings, aunts and uncles, mentors, pastors — anyone invested in these kids' lives are stakeholders. And that is the only real safeguard that communities have here: direct participation in and influence over the well-being of the children. If we want to build a more just society, we can and should begin by abandoning the top-down, ideologically-motivated model of educational reform. We must stop letting the elites destroy the strongest chance our most vulnerable children have at improving their station in life. Indigenous projects are the very best of our past — and they will be the very best of our future. Bob Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center, and editor of the book ' A Pathway to American Renewal: Red, White, and Black Vol II. ' Will Crossley is the executive vice president of the Woodson Center and president of the Piney Woods School.
