#polarization — Public Fediverse posts

When democracy started sounding left-wing

Back in January, when I told my electrician that I would soon be working at the Israel Democracy Institute, he immediately said it sounded left-wing.

He did not know anything about the Institute’s research, its staff, its positions, or its history. He was reacting to the name. More specifically, he was reacting to the word democracy.

That moment stayed with me because his assumption did not strike me as unusual. In Israel today, the word democracy often arrives carrying political baggage. It can evoke Israel’s judicial-overhaul protests, the center-left, the courts, elite institutions, or opposition to the current government. A word that ought to describe the shared structure of political life has begun to sound like the vocabulary of one camp.

So the question is not whether democracy is left-wing. It is not. The question is how democracy came to sound left-wing, and what happens when a value that should belong to everyone begins to sound like someone else’s slogan.

A history that does not fit the label

The Israel Democracy Institute’s history does not fit neatly into the political category now attached to its name. Arye Carmon founded the Institute in 1991 with the support of Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot and the Institute’s founding benefactor. Marcus was also a major Republican donor who gave substantial support to Donald Trump1.

Nor is the Institute’s connection to the political right only historical. Its honorary chair is Israel’s former president Reuven Rivlin, who spent his political career in Likud and served as a minister and speaker of the Knesset before becoming president2. Rivlin’s support for democratic institutions, civic equality, and dialogue across Israel’s social divisions did not make him a man of the left3. It reflected a political tradition in which a person could hold firmly right-wing views while also treating democratic principles as part of Israel’s national foundation.

Marcus and Rivlin show that the Institute’s democratic mission was neither created by the left nor confined to it. The assumption that an organization devoted to democracy must be left-wing says less about the Institute’s origins than about how dramatically the political meaning of the word has changed.

I know what I mean by my values

I have never believed that political camps should be allowed to define my values for me. I know what I mean when I call myself a Zionist. I know what I mean when I call myself a feminist. And I know what I mean when I say that I support democracy.

Each of those words has been stretched, narrowed, praised, attacked, and turned into a political signal. But a value does not cease to be mine because someone else uses it differently.

To support democracy is not to endorse every institution, ruling, protest movement, or political party that invokes its name. It is to affirm a system in which power is limited, leaders can be replaced, citizens are protected, and no governing coalition is entitled to treat electoral victory as a blank check.

Democracy may now sound left-wing in certain political contexts, but that does not make it an exclusively left-wing value.

Two meanings of democracy

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that democracy is not a single, uncontested idea. For some, it means above all that the majority chooses the government and that elected leaders must be able to carry out their mandate. From this perspective, courts, civil servants, and other unelected bodies can appear to obstruct the will of the people4.

For others, elections are only one part of democracy. Democracy also requires an independent judiciary, the rule of law, minority rights, professional institutions, and limits on the power of the majority. From this perspective, a government can win an election and still act undemocratically if it weakens the safeguards that prevent power from becoming absolute.

These two understandings often speak past one another. One side hears the word democracy and thinks of popular sovereignty. The other hears it and thinks of constitutional restraint.

How political language changes

Words acquire political meaning through repetition. When one camp repeatedly describes itself as defending a principle, while the opposing camp avoids the term or treats it with suspicion, the public gradually begins to associate that principle with the first camp.

Political leaders help drive this process. People tend to trust the language used by figures on their own side and to distrust the same language when it comes from their opponents5. Over time, the word itself becomes a cue. It no longer points only to an idea; it also signals who is speaking, which institutions they trust, and which political coalition they are likely to support.

This is how a value that once functioned as common civic language can become a partisan marker. It happens as repeated patterns of use teach people to hear a political identity inside it.

The American shift

In the United States, democracy was not always a word associated primarily with the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan spoke comfortably about democracy, and Republican platforms once used the term as part of their own description of the American political system6.

The contrast with 2024 is striking. The Democratic Party platform repeatedly emphasized the defense and strengthening of democracy. The Republican platform did not use the word at all, relying instead on terms such as the Constitution, freedom, election security, and government by the people7.

Public opinion reflected the same divergence. Democratic voters were far more likely than Republican voters to identify the preservation of democracy as a central concern in the presidential election. Yet majorities in both parties still expressed support for democratic government in principle8.

The shift, then, was not simply that one party supported democracy while the other rejected it. It was that the word itself had become much more central to the identity and rhetoric of one side than the other.

Israel’s constitutional rupture

In Israel, the partisan coding of democracy accelerated sharply during the judicial-overhaul crisis that began in 2023. Opponents of the government’s proposals filled streets, bridges, and public squares with Israeli flags and signs declaring that they were defending democracy. Week after week, the word became visually and emotionally identified with the protest movement9.

Government supporters answered with a competing claim: the overhaul was itself democratic because it would reduce the power of unelected judges and restore authority to the representatives chosen by the public. In their telling, the protests were not defending democracy but resisting the outcome of an election10.

The conflict therefore attached the word to a specific political and social camp. Even people who had no detailed opinion about judicial appointments or constitutional design could see who was carrying the signs, organizing the demonstrations, and speaking most insistently in democracy’s name.

By the time the struggle became part of Israel’s ordinary political vocabulary, “democracy” no longer sounded merely like a description of the system. To many Israelis, it sounded like a position within the fight over that system.

When democracy becomes a party name

The formation of a new Israeli party called The Democrats made the shift impossible to miss. Created through the merger of Labor and Meretz, the party chose as its name a word that should describe the political system shared by all parties11.

The name was politically effective precisely because the association already existed. It appealed to voters who saw themselves as defending liberal institutions, civil rights, and constitutional limits. But it also reinforced the idea that democracy belonged to one part of the political map.

The party did not cause the word to become left-coded. It revealed how far that process had already gone. Once “democracy” can function naturally as the brand of a center-left party, it no longer sounds only like a common national principle.

What I saw at the Eli Hurvitz Conference

I work at the Israel Democracy Institute, and I attended this year’s Eli Hurvitz Conference on Economy and Society. Coalition politicians were invited, but not a single representative of the current governing coalition participated. I saw the imbalance firsthand.

I cannot know why every invited politician declined. But in an election year, one plausible explanation is that appearing at an Israel Democracy Institute event carried a political cost12. Coalition politicians may have feared that their own voters would interpret participation in a nonpartisan policy forum as a sign of association with the left.

That matters because their absence was not imposed by the Institute. It was the result of a political choice. A conference intended as a national forum appeared more politically one-sided because one side chose not to enter the room.

A cycle that confirms itself

Once an institution acquires a partisan reputation, political behavior can make that reputation appear increasingly accurate. Public figures who fear being associated with the other side stay away. Their absence changes who appears onstage, whose arguments are heard, and how the event is perceived from outside.

The resulting picture then becomes evidence for the original assumption. Observers see an institution populated mainly by figures from one side and conclude that it must belong to that side.

This is how perception hardens into political reality. A label shapes participation; participation shapes appearance; and appearance strengthens the label.

Why this matters

A democratic system depends on more than formal rules. It also depends on citizens recognizing certain principles as binding even when those principles frustrate their own political side.

That becomes harder when democracy is treated as the language of one camp. Courts, elections, civil rights, and limits on power are then judged less by whether they are legitimate than by whether they help or hinder a preferred coalition. Violations become easier to excuse when they are committed by allies and easier to condemn when they are committed by opponents13.

The danger is not only hypocrisy. It is the gradual loss of a shared standard. Once democratic norms are filtered entirely through partisan loyalty, there is no longer a common basis for objecting when power is abused.

Reclaiming the word

The answer is not to abandon the language of democracy, but to use it more precisely. The word should not function as praise for one coalition or condemnation of another. It should describe standards that apply regardless of who is in power.

That means asking the same questions of every government: Does it respect the outcome of elections? Does it preserve meaningful political competition? Does it accept legal limits on its authority? Does it protect the rights of citizens who did not vote for it? Does it permit institutions to perform their roles without being reduced to extensions of the ruling party?

A democratic commitment becomes credible only when it survives political inconvenience. It must restrain allies as well as opponents.

Reclaiming the word therefore requires separating democracy from political allegiance. It should name the rules under which the struggle for power takes place, not one of the teams competing within it.

Someone else’s slogan

The political meaning attached to a word is not the same as the value the word names. Democracy has not become left-wing simply because it is now invoked more often by the left, distrusted more often by the right, or attached to institutions that one side increasingly avoids.

The deeper problem is that polarization has made a shared constitutional value sound like someone else’s slogan. Once that happens, defending democracy can be mistaken for choosing a camp rather than defending the conditions that allow competing camps to exist at all.

I do not accept that surrender. Democracy does not belong to the left, the right, the government, the opposition, the courts, or the protesters. It belongs to the public—and it remains most necessary when those in power would prefer to treat it as optional.

Footnotes

1. Home Depot’s co-founder and billionaire philanthropist dies at 95 ↩︎
2. Reuven Rivlin ↩︎
3. President Reuven Rivlin Joins IDI as Honorary Chair ↩︎
4. Populism in Europe: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism ↩︎
5. Elite Cues and Political Decision Making ↩︎
6. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, “Address to Members of the British Parliament”; American Presidency Project, archive of party platforms ↩︎
7. American Presidency Project, 2024 Democratic Party Platform; 2024 Republican Party Platform ↩︎
8. Gallup, “Economy, Immigration, Abortion, Democracy Driving Voters”; AP-NORC, “Most say democracy is important for the U.S. identity, but few think it is functioning well” ↩︎
9. Tens of thousands join protests against Israeli judicial overhaul ↩︎
10. ibid. ↩︎
11. The Democrats ↩︎
12. Israel’s parliament dissolves ahead of Oct. 27 elections ↩︎
13. Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States ↩︎

When democracy started sounding left-wing

Back in January, when I told my electrician that I would soon be working at the Israel Democracy Institute, he immediately said it sounded left-wing.

He did not know anything about the Institute’s research, its staff, its positions, or its history. He was reacting to the name. More specifically, he was reacting to the word democracy.

That moment stayed with me because his assumption did not strike me as unusual. In Israel today, the word democracy often arrives carrying political baggage. It can evoke Israel’s judicial-overhaul protests, the center-left, the courts, elite institutions, or opposition to the current government. A word that ought to describe the shared structure of political life has begun to sound like the vocabulary of one camp.

So the question is not whether democracy is left-wing. It is not. The question is how democracy came to sound left-wing, and what happens when a value that should belong to everyone begins to sound like someone else’s slogan.

A history that does not fit the label

The Israel Democracy Institute’s history does not fit neatly into the political category now attached to its name. Arye Carmon founded the Institute in 1991 with the support of Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot and the Institute’s founding benefactor. Marcus was also a major Republican donor who gave substantial support to Donald Trump1.

Nor is the Institute’s connection to the political right only historical. Its honorary chair is Israel’s former president Reuven Rivlin, who spent his political career in Likud and served as a minister and speaker of the Knesset before becoming president2. Rivlin’s support for democratic institutions, civic equality, and dialogue across Israel’s social divisions did not make him a man of the left3. It reflected a political tradition in which a person could hold firmly right-wing views while also treating democratic principles as part of Israel’s national foundation.

Marcus and Rivlin show that the Institute’s democratic mission was neither created by the left nor confined to it. The assumption that an organization devoted to democracy must be left-wing says less about the Institute’s origins than about how dramatically the political meaning of the word has changed.

I know what I mean by my values

I have never believed that political camps should be allowed to define my values for me. I know what I mean when I call myself a Zionist. I know what I mean when I call myself a feminist. And I know what I mean when I say that I support democracy.

Each of those words has been stretched, narrowed, praised, attacked, and turned into a political signal. But a value does not cease to be mine because someone else uses it differently.

To support democracy is not to endorse every institution, ruling, protest movement, or political party that invokes its name. It is to affirm a system in which power is limited, leaders can be replaced, citizens are protected, and no governing coalition is entitled to treat electoral victory as a blank check.

Democracy may now sound left-wing in certain political contexts, but that does not make it an exclusively left-wing value.

Two meanings of democracy

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that democracy is not a single, uncontested idea. For some, it means above all that the majority chooses the government and that elected leaders must be able to carry out their mandate. From this perspective, courts, civil servants, and other unelected bodies can appear to obstruct the will of the people4.

For others, elections are only one part of democracy. Democracy also requires an independent judiciary, the rule of law, minority rights, professional institutions, and limits on the power of the majority. From this perspective, a government can win an election and still act undemocratically if it weakens the safeguards that prevent power from becoming absolute.

These two understandings often speak past one another. One side hears the word democracy and thinks of popular sovereignty. The other hears it and thinks of constitutional restraint.

How political language changes

Words acquire political meaning through repetition. When one camp repeatedly describes itself as defending a principle, while the opposing camp avoids the term or treats it with suspicion, the public gradually begins to associate that principle with the first camp.

Political leaders help drive this process. People tend to trust the language used by figures on their own side and to distrust the same language when it comes from their opponents5. Over time, the word itself becomes a cue. It no longer points only to an idea; it also signals who is speaking, which institutions they trust, and which political coalition they are likely to support.

This is how a value that once functioned as common civic language can become a partisan marker. It happens as repeated patterns of use teach people to hear a political identity inside it.

The American shift

In the United States, democracy was not always a word associated primarily with the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan spoke comfortably about democracy, and Republican platforms once used the term as part of their own description of the American political system6.

The contrast with 2024 is striking. The Democratic Party platform repeatedly emphasized the defense and strengthening of democracy. The Republican platform did not use the word at all, relying instead on terms such as the Constitution, freedom, election security, and government by the people7.

Public opinion reflected the same divergence. Democratic voters were far more likely than Republican voters to identify the preservation of democracy as a central concern in the presidential election. Yet majorities in both parties still expressed support for democratic government in principle8.

The shift, then, was not simply that one party supported democracy while the other rejected it. It was that the word itself had become much more central to the identity and rhetoric of one side than the other.

Israel’s constitutional rupture

In Israel, the partisan coding of democracy accelerated sharply during the judicial-overhaul crisis that began in 2023. Opponents of the government’s proposals filled streets, bridges, and public squares with Israeli flags and signs declaring that they were defending democracy. Week after week, the word became visually and emotionally identified with the protest movement9.

Government supporters answered with a competing claim: the overhaul was itself democratic because it would reduce the power of unelected judges and restore authority to the representatives chosen by the public. In their telling, the protests were not defending democracy but resisting the outcome of an election10.

The conflict therefore attached the word to a specific political and social camp. Even people who had no detailed opinion about judicial appointments or constitutional design could see who was carrying the signs, organizing the demonstrations, and speaking most insistently in democracy’s name.

By the time the struggle became part of Israel’s ordinary political vocabulary, “democracy” no longer sounded merely like a description of the system. To many Israelis, it sounded like a position within the fight over that system.

When democracy becomes a party name

The formation of a new Israeli party called The Democrats made the shift impossible to miss. Created through the merger of Labor and Meretz, the party chose as its name a word that should describe the political system shared by all parties11.

The name was politically effective precisely because the association already existed. It appealed to voters who saw themselves as defending liberal institutions, civil rights, and constitutional limits. But it also reinforced the idea that democracy belonged to one part of the political map.

The party did not cause the word to become left-coded. It revealed how far that process had already gone. Once “democracy” can function naturally as the brand of a center-left party, it no longer sounds only like a common national principle.

What I saw at the Eli Hurvitz Conference

I work at the Israel Democracy Institute, and I attended this year’s Eli Hurvitz Conference on Economy and Society. Coalition politicians were invited, but not a single representative of the current governing coalition participated. I saw the imbalance firsthand.

I cannot know why every invited politician declined. But in an election year, one plausible explanation is that appearing at an Israel Democracy Institute event carried a political cost12. Coalition politicians may have feared that their own voters would interpret participation in a nonpartisan policy forum as a sign of association with the left.

That matters because their absence was not imposed by the Institute. It was the result of a political choice. A conference intended as a national forum appeared more politically one-sided because one side chose not to enter the room.

A cycle that confirms itself

Once an institution acquires a partisan reputation, political behavior can make that reputation appear increasingly accurate. Public figures who fear being associated with the other side stay away. Their absence changes who appears onstage, whose arguments are heard, and how the event is perceived from outside.

The resulting picture then becomes evidence for the original assumption. Observers see an institution populated mainly by figures from one side and conclude that it must belong to that side.

This is how perception hardens into political reality. A label shapes participation; participation shapes appearance; and appearance strengthens the label.

Why this matters

A democratic system depends on more than formal rules. It also depends on citizens recognizing certain principles as binding even when those principles frustrate their own political side.

That becomes harder when democracy is treated as the language of one camp. Courts, elections, civil rights, and limits on power are then judged less by whether they are legitimate than by whether they help or hinder a preferred coalition. Violations become easier to excuse when they are committed by allies and easier to condemn when they are committed by opponents13.

The danger is not only hypocrisy. It is the gradual loss of a shared standard. Once democratic norms are filtered entirely through partisan loyalty, there is no longer a common basis for objecting when power is abused.

Reclaiming the word

The answer is not to abandon the language of democracy, but to use it more precisely. The word should not function as praise for one coalition or condemnation of another. It should describe standards that apply regardless of who is in power.

That means asking the same questions of every government: Does it respect the outcome of elections? Does it preserve meaningful political competition? Does it accept legal limits on its authority? Does it protect the rights of citizens who did not vote for it? Does it permit institutions to perform their roles without being reduced to extensions of the ruling party?

A democratic commitment becomes credible only when it survives political inconvenience. It must restrain allies as well as opponents.

Reclaiming the word therefore requires separating democracy from political allegiance. It should name the rules under which the struggle for power takes place, not one of the teams competing within it.

Someone else’s slogan

The political meaning attached to a word is not the same as the value the word names. Democracy has not become left-wing simply because it is now invoked more often by the left, distrusted more often by the right, or attached to institutions that one side increasingly avoids.

The deeper problem is that polarization has made a shared constitutional value sound like someone else’s slogan. Once that happens, defending democracy can be mistaken for choosing a camp rather than defending the conditions that allow competing camps to exist at all.

I do not accept that surrender. Democracy does not belong to the left, the right, the government, the opposition, the courts, or the protesters. It belongs to the public—and it remains most necessary when those in power would prefer to treat it as optional.

Footnotes

1. Home Depot’s co-founder and billionaire philanthropist dies at 95 ↩︎
2. Reuven Rivlin ↩︎
3. President Reuven Rivlin Joins IDI as Honorary Chair ↩︎
4. Populism in Europe: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism ↩︎
5. Elite Cues and Political Decision Making ↩︎
6. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, “Address to Members of the British Parliament”; American Presidency Project, archive of party platforms ↩︎
7. American Presidency Project, 2024 Democratic Party Platform; 2024 Republican Party Platform ↩︎
8. Gallup, “Economy, Immigration, Abortion, Democracy Driving Voters”; AP-NORC, “Most say democracy is important for the U.S. identity, but few think it is functioning well” ↩︎
9. Tens of thousands join protests against Israeli judicial overhaul ↩︎
10. ibid. ↩︎
11. The Democrats ↩︎
12. Israel’s parliament dissolves ahead of Oct. 27 elections ↩︎
13. Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States ↩︎

When democracy started sounding left-wing

Back in January, when I told my electrician that I would soon be working at the Israel Democracy Institute, he immediately said it sounded left-wing.

He did not know anything about the Institute’s research, its staff, its positions, or its history. He was reacting to the name. More specifically, he was reacting to the word democracy.

That moment stayed with me because his assumption did not strike me as unusual. In Israel today, the word democracy often arrives carrying political baggage. It can evoke Israel’s judicial-overhaul protests, the center-left, the courts, elite institutions, or opposition to the current government. A word that ought to describe the shared structure of political life has begun to sound like the vocabulary of one camp.

So the question is not whether democracy is left-wing. It is not. The question is how democracy came to sound left-wing, and what happens when a value that should belong to everyone begins to sound like someone else’s slogan.

A history that does not fit the label

The Israel Democracy Institute’s history does not fit neatly into the political category now attached to its name. Arye Carmon founded the Institute in 1991 with the support of Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot and the Institute’s founding benefactor. Marcus was also a major Republican donor who gave substantial support to Donald Trump1.

Nor is the Institute’s connection to the political right only historical. Its honorary chair is Israel’s former president Reuven Rivlin, who spent his political career in Likud and served as a minister and speaker of the Knesset before becoming president2. Rivlin’s support for democratic institutions, civic equality, and dialogue across Israel’s social divisions did not make him a man of the left3. It reflected a political tradition in which a person could hold firmly right-wing views while also treating democratic principles as part of Israel’s national foundation.

Marcus and Rivlin show that the Institute’s democratic mission was neither created by the left nor confined to it. The assumption that an organization devoted to democracy must be left-wing says less about the Institute’s origins than about how dramatically the political meaning of the word has changed.

I know what I mean by my values

I have never believed that political camps should be allowed to define my values for me. I know what I mean when I call myself a Zionist. I know what I mean when I call myself a feminist. And I know what I mean when I say that I support democracy.

Each of those words has been stretched, narrowed, praised, attacked, and turned into a political signal. But a value does not cease to be mine because someone else uses it differently.

To support democracy is not to endorse every institution, ruling, protest movement, or political party that invokes its name. It is to affirm a system in which power is limited, leaders can be replaced, citizens are protected, and no governing coalition is entitled to treat electoral victory as a blank check.

Democracy may now sound left-wing in certain political contexts, but that does not make it an exclusively left-wing value.

Two meanings of democracy

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that democracy is not a single, uncontested idea. For some, it means above all that the majority chooses the government and that elected leaders must be able to carry out their mandate. From this perspective, courts, civil servants, and other unelected bodies can appear to obstruct the will of the people4.

For others, elections are only one part of democracy. Democracy also requires an independent judiciary, the rule of law, minority rights, professional institutions, and limits on the power of the majority. From this perspective, a government can win an election and still act undemocratically if it weakens the safeguards that prevent power from becoming absolute.

These two understandings often speak past one another. One side hears the word democracy and thinks of popular sovereignty. The other hears it and thinks of constitutional restraint.

How political language changes

Words acquire political meaning through repetition. When one camp repeatedly describes itself as defending a principle, while the opposing camp avoids the term or treats it with suspicion, the public gradually begins to associate that principle with the first camp.

Political leaders help drive this process. People tend to trust the language used by figures on their own side and to distrust the same language when it comes from their opponents5. Over time, the word itself becomes a cue. It no longer points only to an idea; it also signals who is speaking, which institutions they trust, and which political coalition they are likely to support.

This is how a value that once functioned as common civic language can become a partisan marker. It happens as repeated patterns of use teach people to hear a political identity inside it.

The American shift

In the United States, democracy was not always a word associated primarily with the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan spoke comfortably about democracy, and Republican platforms once used the term as part of their own description of the American political system6.

The contrast with 2024 is striking. The Democratic Party platform repeatedly emphasized the defense and strengthening of democracy. The Republican platform did not use the word at all, relying instead on terms such as the Constitution, freedom, election security, and government by the people7.

Public opinion reflected the same divergence. Democratic voters were far more likely than Republican voters to identify the preservation of democracy as a central concern in the presidential election. Yet majorities in both parties still expressed support for democratic government in principle8.

The shift, then, was not simply that one party supported democracy while the other rejected it. It was that the word itself had become much more central to the identity and rhetoric of one side than the other.

Israel’s constitutional rupture

In Israel, the partisan coding of democracy accelerated sharply during the judicial-overhaul crisis that began in 2023. Opponents of the government’s proposals filled streets, bridges, and public squares with Israeli flags and signs declaring that they were defending democracy. Week after week, the word became visually and emotionally identified with the protest movement9.

Government supporters answered with a competing claim: the overhaul was itself democratic because it would reduce the power of unelected judges and restore authority to the representatives chosen by the public. In their telling, the protests were not defending democracy but resisting the outcome of an election10.

The conflict therefore attached the word to a specific political and social camp. Even people who had no detailed opinion about judicial appointments or constitutional design could see who was carrying the signs, organizing the demonstrations, and speaking most insistently in democracy’s name.

By the time the struggle became part of Israel’s ordinary political vocabulary, “democracy” no longer sounded merely like a description of the system. To many Israelis, it sounded like a position within the fight over that system.

When democracy becomes a party name

The formation of a new Israeli party called The Democrats made the shift impossible to miss. Created through the merger of Labor and Meretz, the party chose as its name a word that should describe the political system shared by all parties11.

The name was politically effective precisely because the association already existed. It appealed to voters who saw themselves as defending liberal institutions, civil rights, and constitutional limits. But it also reinforced the idea that democracy belonged to one part of the political map.

The party did not cause the word to become left-coded. It revealed how far that process had already gone. Once “democracy” can function naturally as the brand of a center-left party, it no longer sounds only like a common national principle.

What I saw at the Eli Hurvitz Conference

I work at the Israel Democracy Institute, and I attended this year’s Eli Hurvitz Conference on Economy and Society. Coalition politicians were invited, but not a single representative of the current governing coalition participated. I saw the imbalance firsthand.

I cannot know why every invited politician declined. But in an election year, one plausible explanation is that appearing at an Israel Democracy Institute event carried a political cost12. Coalition politicians may have feared that their own voters would interpret participation in a nonpartisan policy forum as a sign of association with the left.

That matters because their absence was not imposed by the Institute. It was the result of a political choice. A conference intended as a national forum appeared more politically one-sided because one side chose not to enter the room.

A cycle that confirms itself

Once an institution acquires a partisan reputation, political behavior can make that reputation appear increasingly accurate. Public figures who fear being associated with the other side stay away. Their absence changes who appears onstage, whose arguments are heard, and how the event is perceived from outside.

The resulting picture then becomes evidence for the original assumption. Observers see an institution populated mainly by figures from one side and conclude that it must belong to that side.

This is how perception hardens into political reality. A label shapes participation; participation shapes appearance; and appearance strengthens the label.

Why this matters

A democratic system depends on more than formal rules. It also depends on citizens recognizing certain principles as binding even when those principles frustrate their own political side.

That becomes harder when democracy is treated as the language of one camp. Courts, elections, civil rights, and limits on power are then judged less by whether they are legitimate than by whether they help or hinder a preferred coalition. Violations become easier to excuse when they are committed by allies and easier to condemn when they are committed by opponents13.

The danger is not only hypocrisy. It is the gradual loss of a shared standard. Once democratic norms are filtered entirely through partisan loyalty, there is no longer a common basis for objecting when power is abused.

Reclaiming the word

The answer is not to abandon the language of democracy, but to use it more precisely. The word should not function as praise for one coalition or condemnation of another. It should describe standards that apply regardless of who is in power.

That means asking the same questions of every government: Does it respect the outcome of elections? Does it preserve meaningful political competition? Does it accept legal limits on its authority? Does it protect the rights of citizens who did not vote for it? Does it permit institutions to perform their roles without being reduced to extensions of the ruling party?

A democratic commitment becomes credible only when it survives political inconvenience. It must restrain allies as well as opponents.

Reclaiming the word therefore requires separating democracy from political allegiance. It should name the rules under which the struggle for power takes place, not one of the teams competing within it.

Someone else’s slogan

The political meaning attached to a word is not the same as the value the word names. Democracy has not become left-wing simply because it is now invoked more often by the left, distrusted more often by the right, or attached to institutions that one side increasingly avoids.

The deeper problem is that polarization has made a shared constitutional value sound like someone else’s slogan. Once that happens, defending democracy can be mistaken for choosing a camp rather than defending the conditions that allow competing camps to exist at all.

I do not accept that surrender. Democracy does not belong to the left, the right, the government, the opposition, the courts, or the protesters. It belongs to the public—and it remains most necessary when those in power would prefer to treat it as optional.

Footnotes

1. Home Depot’s co-founder and billionaire philanthropist dies at 95 ↩︎
2. Reuven Rivlin ↩︎
3. President Reuven Rivlin Joins IDI as Honorary Chair ↩︎
4. Populism in Europe: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism ↩︎
5. Elite Cues and Political Decision Making ↩︎
6. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, “Address to Members of the British Parliament”; American Presidency Project, archive of party platforms ↩︎
7. American Presidency Project, 2024 Democratic Party Platform; 2024 Republican Party Platform ↩︎
8. Gallup, “Economy, Immigration, Abortion, Democracy Driving Voters”; AP-NORC, “Most say democracy is important for the U.S. identity, but few think it is functioning well” ↩︎
9. Tens of thousands join protests against Israeli judicial overhaul ↩︎
10. ibid. ↩︎
11. The Democrats ↩︎
12. Israel’s parliament dissolves ahead of Oct. 27 elections ↩︎
13. Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States ↩︎

When democracy started sounding left-wing

Back in January, when I told my electrician that I would soon be working at the Israel Democracy Institute, he immediately said it sounded left-wing.

He did not know anything about the Institute’s research, its staff, its positions, or its history. He was reacting to the name. More specifically, he was reacting to the word democracy.

That moment stayed with me because his assumption did not strike me as unusual. In Israel today, the word democracy often arrives carrying political baggage. It can evoke Israel’s judicial-overhaul protests, the center-left, the courts, elite institutions, or opposition to the current government. A word that ought to describe the shared structure of political life has begun to sound like the vocabulary of one camp.

So the question is not whether democracy is left-wing. It is not. The question is how democracy came to sound left-wing, and what happens when a value that should belong to everyone begins to sound like someone else’s slogan.

A history that does not fit the label

The Israel Democracy Institute’s history does not fit neatly into the political category now attached to its name. Arye Carmon founded the Institute in 1991 with the support of Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot and the Institute’s founding benefactor. Marcus was also a major Republican donor who gave substantial support to Donald Trump1.

Nor is the Institute’s connection to the political right only historical. Its honorary chair is Israel’s former president Reuven Rivlin, who spent his political career in Likud and served as a minister and speaker of the Knesset before becoming president2. Rivlin’s support for democratic institutions, civic equality, and dialogue across Israel’s social divisions did not make him a man of the left3. It reflected a political tradition in which a person could hold firmly right-wing views while also treating democratic principles as part of Israel’s national foundation.

Marcus and Rivlin show that the Institute’s democratic mission was neither created by the left nor confined to it. The assumption that an organization devoted to democracy must be left-wing says less about the Institute’s origins than about how dramatically the political meaning of the word has changed.

I know what I mean by my values

I have never believed that political camps should be allowed to define my values for me. I know what I mean when I call myself a Zionist. I know what I mean when I call myself a feminist. And I know what I mean when I say that I support democracy.

Each of those words has been stretched, narrowed, praised, attacked, and turned into a political signal. But a value does not cease to be mine because someone else uses it differently.

To support democracy is not to endorse every institution, ruling, protest movement, or political party that invokes its name. It is to affirm a system in which power is limited, leaders can be replaced, citizens are protected, and no governing coalition is entitled to treat electoral victory as a blank check.

Democracy may now sound left-wing in certain political contexts, but that does not make it an exclusively left-wing value.

Two meanings of democracy

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that democracy is not a single, uncontested idea. For some, it means above all that the majority chooses the government and that elected leaders must be able to carry out their mandate. From this perspective, courts, civil servants, and other unelected bodies can appear to obstruct the will of the people4.

For others, elections are only one part of democracy. Democracy also requires an independent judiciary, the rule of law, minority rights, professional institutions, and limits on the power of the majority. From this perspective, a government can win an election and still act undemocratically if it weakens the safeguards that prevent power from becoming absolute.

These two understandings often speak past one another. One side hears the word democracy and thinks of popular sovereignty. The other hears it and thinks of constitutional restraint.

How political language changes

Words acquire political meaning through repetition. When one camp repeatedly describes itself as defending a principle, while the opposing camp avoids the term or treats it with suspicion, the public gradually begins to associate that principle with the first camp.

Political leaders help drive this process. People tend to trust the language used by figures on their own side and to distrust the same language when it comes from their opponents5. Over time, the word itself becomes a cue. It no longer points only to an idea; it also signals who is speaking, which institutions they trust, and which political coalition they are likely to support.

This is how a value that once functioned as common civic language can become a partisan marker. It happens as repeated patterns of use teach people to hear a political identity inside it.

The American shift

In the United States, democracy was not always a word associated primarily with the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan spoke comfortably about democracy, and Republican platforms once used the term as part of their own description of the American political system6.

The contrast with 2024 is striking. The Democratic Party platform repeatedly emphasized the defense and strengthening of democracy. The Republican platform did not use the word at all, relying instead on terms such as the Constitution, freedom, election security, and government by the people7.

Public opinion reflected the same divergence. Democratic voters were far more likely than Republican voters to identify the preservation of democracy as a central concern in the presidential election. Yet majorities in both parties still expressed support for democratic government in principle8.

The shift, then, was not simply that one party supported democracy while the other rejected it. It was that the word itself had become much more central to the identity and rhetoric of one side than the other.

Israel’s constitutional rupture

In Israel, the partisan coding of democracy accelerated sharply during the judicial-overhaul crisis that began in 2023. Opponents of the government’s proposals filled streets, bridges, and public squares with Israeli flags and signs declaring that they were defending democracy. Week after week, the word became visually and emotionally identified with the protest movement9.

Government supporters answered with a competing claim: the overhaul was itself democratic because it would reduce the power of unelected judges and restore authority to the representatives chosen by the public. In their telling, the protests were not defending democracy but resisting the outcome of an election10.

The conflict therefore attached the word to a specific political and social camp. Even people who had no detailed opinion about judicial appointments or constitutional design could see who was carrying the signs, organizing the demonstrations, and speaking most insistently in democracy’s name.

By the time the struggle became part of Israel’s ordinary political vocabulary, “democracy” no longer sounded merely like a description of the system. To many Israelis, it sounded like a position within the fight over that system.

When democracy becomes a party name

The formation of a new Israeli party called The Democrats made the shift impossible to miss. Created through the merger of Labor and Meretz, the party chose as its name a word that should describe the political system shared by all parties11.

The name was politically effective precisely because the association already existed. It appealed to voters who saw themselves as defending liberal institutions, civil rights, and constitutional limits. But it also reinforced the idea that democracy belonged to one part of the political map.

The party did not cause the word to become left-coded. It revealed how far that process had already gone. Once “democracy” can function naturally as the brand of a center-left party, it no longer sounds only like a common national principle.

What I saw at the Eli Hurvitz Conference

I work at the Israel Democracy Institute, and I attended this year’s Eli Hurvitz Conference on Economy and Society. Coalition politicians were invited, but not a single representative of the current governing coalition participated. I saw the imbalance firsthand.

I cannot know why every invited politician declined. But in an election year, one plausible explanation is that appearing at an Israel Democracy Institute event carried a political cost12. Coalition politicians may have feared that their own voters would interpret participation in a nonpartisan policy forum as a sign of association with the left.

That matters because their absence was not imposed by the Institute. It was the result of a political choice. A conference intended as a national forum appeared more politically one-sided because one side chose not to enter the room.

A cycle that confirms itself

Once an institution acquires a partisan reputation, political behavior can make that reputation appear increasingly accurate. Public figures who fear being associated with the other side stay away. Their absence changes who appears onstage, whose arguments are heard, and how the event is perceived from outside.

The resulting picture then becomes evidence for the original assumption. Observers see an institution populated mainly by figures from one side and conclude that it must belong to that side.

This is how perception hardens into political reality. A label shapes participation; participation shapes appearance; and appearance strengthens the label.

Why this matters

A democratic system depends on more than formal rules. It also depends on citizens recognizing certain principles as binding even when those principles frustrate their own political side.

That becomes harder when democracy is treated as the language of one camp. Courts, elections, civil rights, and limits on power are then judged less by whether they are legitimate than by whether they help or hinder a preferred coalition. Violations become easier to excuse when they are committed by allies and easier to condemn when they are committed by opponents13.

The danger is not only hypocrisy. It is the gradual loss of a shared standard. Once democratic norms are filtered entirely through partisan loyalty, there is no longer a common basis for objecting when power is abused.

Reclaiming the word

The answer is not to abandon the language of democracy, but to use it more precisely. The word should not function as praise for one coalition or condemnation of another. It should describe standards that apply regardless of who is in power.

That means asking the same questions of every government: Does it respect the outcome of elections? Does it preserve meaningful political competition? Does it accept legal limits on its authority? Does it protect the rights of citizens who did not vote for it? Does it permit institutions to perform their roles without being reduced to extensions of the ruling party?

A democratic commitment becomes credible only when it survives political inconvenience. It must restrain allies as well as opponents.

Reclaiming the word therefore requires separating democracy from political allegiance. It should name the rules under which the struggle for power takes place, not one of the teams competing within it.

Someone else’s slogan

The political meaning attached to a word is not the same as the value the word names. Democracy has not become left-wing simply because it is now invoked more often by the left, distrusted more often by the right, or attached to institutions that one side increasingly avoids.

The deeper problem is that polarization has made a shared constitutional value sound like someone else’s slogan. Once that happens, defending democracy can be mistaken for choosing a camp rather than defending the conditions that allow competing camps to exist at all.

I do not accept that surrender. Democracy does not belong to the left, the right, the government, the opposition, the courts, or the protesters. It belongs to the public—and it remains most necessary when those in power would prefer to treat it as optional.

Footnotes

1. Home Depot’s co-founder and billionaire philanthropist dies at 95 ↩︎
2. Reuven Rivlin ↩︎
3. President Reuven Rivlin Joins IDI as Honorary Chair ↩︎
4. Populism in Europe: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism ↩︎
5. Elite Cues and Political Decision Making ↩︎
6. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, “Address to Members of the British Parliament”; American Presidency Project, archive of party platforms ↩︎
7. American Presidency Project, 2024 Democratic Party Platform; 2024 Republican Party Platform ↩︎
8. Gallup, “Economy, Immigration, Abortion, Democracy Driving Voters”; AP-NORC, “Most say democracy is important for the U.S. identity, but few think it is functioning well” ↩︎
9. Tens of thousands join protests against Israeli judicial overhaul ↩︎
10. ibid. ↩︎
11. The Democrats ↩︎
12. Israel’s parliament dissolves ahead of Oct. 27 elections ↩︎
13. Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States ↩︎

When democracy started sounding left-wing

Back in January, when I told my electrician that I would soon be working at the Israel Democracy Institute, he immediately said it sounded left-wing.

He did not know anything about the Institute’s research, its staff, its positions, or its history. He was reacting to the name. More specifically, he was reacting to the word democracy.

That moment stayed with me because his assumption did not strike me as unusual. In Israel today, the word democracy often arrives carrying political baggage. It can evoke Israel’s judicial-overhaul protests, the center-left, the courts, elite institutions, or opposition to the current government. A word that ought to describe the shared structure of political life has begun to sound like the vocabulary of one camp.

So the question is not whether democracy is left-wing. It is not. The question is how democracy came to sound left-wing, and what happens when a value that should belong to everyone begins to sound like someone else’s slogan.

A history that does not fit the label

The Israel Democracy Institute’s history does not fit neatly into the political category now attached to its name. Arye Carmon founded the Institute in 1991 with the support of Bernie Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot and the Institute’s founding benefactor. Marcus was also a major Republican donor who gave substantial support to Donald Trump1.

Nor is the Institute’s connection to the political right only historical. Its honorary chair is Israel’s former president Reuven Rivlin, who spent his political career in Likud and served as a minister and speaker of the Knesset before becoming president2. Rivlin’s support for democratic institutions, civic equality, and dialogue across Israel’s social divisions did not make him a man of the left3. It reflected a political tradition in which a person could hold firmly right-wing views while also treating democratic principles as part of Israel’s national foundation.

Marcus and Rivlin show that the Institute’s democratic mission was neither created by the left nor confined to it. The assumption that an organization devoted to democracy must be left-wing says less about the Institute’s origins than about how dramatically the political meaning of the word has changed.

I know what I mean by my values

I have never believed that political camps should be allowed to define my values for me. I know what I mean when I call myself a Zionist. I know what I mean when I call myself a feminist. And I know what I mean when I say that I support democracy.

Each of those words has been stretched, narrowed, praised, attacked, and turned into a political signal. But a value does not cease to be mine because someone else uses it differently.

To support democracy is not to endorse every institution, ruling, protest movement, or political party that invokes its name. It is to affirm a system in which power is limited, leaders can be replaced, citizens are protected, and no governing coalition is entitled to treat electoral victory as a blank check.

Democracy may now sound left-wing in certain political contexts, but that does not make it an exclusively left-wing value.

Two meanings of democracy

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that democracy is not a single, uncontested idea. For some, it means above all that the majority chooses the government and that elected leaders must be able to carry out their mandate. From this perspective, courts, civil servants, and other unelected bodies can appear to obstruct the will of the people4.

For others, elections are only one part of democracy. Democracy also requires an independent judiciary, the rule of law, minority rights, professional institutions, and limits on the power of the majority. From this perspective, a government can win an election and still act undemocratically if it weakens the safeguards that prevent power from becoming absolute.

These two understandings often speak past one another. One side hears the word democracy and thinks of popular sovereignty. The other hears it and thinks of constitutional restraint.

How political language changes

Words acquire political meaning through repetition. When one camp repeatedly describes itself as defending a principle, while the opposing camp avoids the term or treats it with suspicion, the public gradually begins to associate that principle with the first camp.

Political leaders help drive this process. People tend to trust the language used by figures on their own side and to distrust the same language when it comes from their opponents5. Over time, the word itself becomes a cue. It no longer points only to an idea; it also signals who is speaking, which institutions they trust, and which political coalition they are likely to support.

This is how a value that once functioned as common civic language can become a partisan marker. It happens as repeated patterns of use teach people to hear a political identity inside it.

The American shift

In the United States, democracy was not always a word associated primarily with the Democratic Party. Ronald Reagan spoke comfortably about democracy, and Republican platforms once used the term as part of their own description of the American political system6.

The contrast with 2024 is striking. The Democratic Party platform repeatedly emphasized the defense and strengthening of democracy. The Republican platform did not use the word at all, relying instead on terms such as the Constitution, freedom, election security, and government by the people7.

Public opinion reflected the same divergence. Democratic voters were far more likely than Republican voters to identify the preservation of democracy as a central concern in the presidential election. Yet majorities in both parties still expressed support for democratic government in principle8.

The shift, then, was not simply that one party supported democracy while the other rejected it. It was that the word itself had become much more central to the identity and rhetoric of one side than the other.

Israel’s constitutional rupture

In Israel, the partisan coding of democracy accelerated sharply during the judicial-overhaul crisis that began in 2023. Opponents of the government’s proposals filled streets, bridges, and public squares with Israeli flags and signs declaring that they were defending democracy. Week after week, the word became visually and emotionally identified with the protest movement9.

Government supporters answered with a competing claim: the overhaul was itself democratic because it would reduce the power of unelected judges and restore authority to the representatives chosen by the public. In their telling, the protests were not defending democracy but resisting the outcome of an election10.

The conflict therefore attached the word to a specific political and social camp. Even people who had no detailed opinion about judicial appointments or constitutional design could see who was carrying the signs, organizing the demonstrations, and speaking most insistently in democracy’s name.

By the time the struggle became part of Israel’s ordinary political vocabulary, “democracy” no longer sounded merely like a description of the system. To many Israelis, it sounded like a position within the fight over that system.

When democracy becomes a party name

The formation of a new Israeli party called The Democrats made the shift impossible to miss. Created through the merger of Labor and Meretz, the party chose as its name a word that should describe the political system shared by all parties11.

The name was politically effective precisely because the association already existed. It appealed to voters who saw themselves as defending liberal institutions, civil rights, and constitutional limits. But it also reinforced the idea that democracy belonged to one part of the political map.

The party did not cause the word to become left-coded. It revealed how far that process had already gone. Once “democracy” can function naturally as the brand of a center-left party, it no longer sounds only like a common national principle.

What I saw at the Eli Hurvitz Conference

I work at the Israel Democracy Institute, and I attended this year’s Eli Hurvitz Conference on Economy and Society. Coalition politicians were invited, but not a single representative of the current governing coalition participated. I saw the imbalance firsthand.

I cannot know why every invited politician declined. But in an election year, one plausible explanation is that appearing at an Israel Democracy Institute event carried a political cost12. Coalition politicians may have feared that their own voters would interpret participation in a nonpartisan policy forum as a sign of association with the left.

That matters because their absence was not imposed by the Institute. It was the result of a political choice. A conference intended as a national forum appeared more politically one-sided because one side chose not to enter the room.

A cycle that confirms itself

Once an institution acquires a partisan reputation, political behavior can make that reputation appear increasingly accurate. Public figures who fear being associated with the other side stay away. Their absence changes who appears onstage, whose arguments are heard, and how the event is perceived from outside.

The resulting picture then becomes evidence for the original assumption. Observers see an institution populated mainly by figures from one side and conclude that it must belong to that side.

This is how perception hardens into political reality. A label shapes participation; participation shapes appearance; and appearance strengthens the label.

Why this matters

A democratic system depends on more than formal rules. It also depends on citizens recognizing certain principles as binding even when those principles frustrate their own political side.

That becomes harder when democracy is treated as the language of one camp. Courts, elections, civil rights, and limits on power are then judged less by whether they are legitimate than by whether they help or hinder a preferred coalition. Violations become easier to excuse when they are committed by allies and easier to condemn when they are committed by opponents13.

The danger is not only hypocrisy. It is the gradual loss of a shared standard. Once democratic norms are filtered entirely through partisan loyalty, there is no longer a common basis for objecting when power is abused.

Reclaiming the word

The answer is not to abandon the language of democracy, but to use it more precisely. The word should not function as praise for one coalition or condemnation of another. It should describe standards that apply regardless of who is in power.

That means asking the same questions of every government: Does it respect the outcome of elections? Does it preserve meaningful political competition? Does it accept legal limits on its authority? Does it protect the rights of citizens who did not vote for it? Does it permit institutions to perform their roles without being reduced to extensions of the ruling party?

A democratic commitment becomes credible only when it survives political inconvenience. It must restrain allies as well as opponents.

Reclaiming the word therefore requires separating democracy from political allegiance. It should name the rules under which the struggle for power takes place, not one of the teams competing within it.

Someone else’s slogan

The political meaning attached to a word is not the same as the value the word names. Democracy has not become left-wing simply because it is now invoked more often by the left, distrusted more often by the right, or attached to institutions that one side increasingly avoids.

The deeper problem is that polarization has made a shared constitutional value sound like someone else’s slogan. Once that happens, defending democracy can be mistaken for choosing a camp rather than defending the conditions that allow competing camps to exist at all.

I do not accept that surrender. Democracy does not belong to the left, the right, the government, the opposition, the courts, or the protesters. It belongs to the public—and it remains most necessary when those in power would prefer to treat it as optional.

Footnotes

1. Home Depot’s co-founder and billionaire philanthropist dies at 95 ↩︎
2. Reuven Rivlin ↩︎
3. President Reuven Rivlin Joins IDI as Honorary Chair ↩︎
4. Populism in Europe: An Illiberal Democratic Response to Undemocratic Liberalism ↩︎
5. Elite Cues and Political Decision Making ↩︎
6. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, “Address to Members of the British Parliament”; American Presidency Project, archive of party platforms ↩︎
7. American Presidency Project, 2024 Democratic Party Platform; 2024 Republican Party Platform ↩︎
8. Gallup, “Economy, Immigration, Abortion, Democracy Driving Voters”; AP-NORC, “Most say democracy is important for the U.S. identity, but few think it is functioning well” ↩︎
9. Tens of thousands join protests against Israeli judicial overhaul ↩︎
10. ibid. ↩︎
11. The Democrats ↩︎
12. Israel’s parliament dissolves ahead of Oct. 27 elections ↩︎
13. Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States ↩︎

Quote of the Day

“Politics follows the lines of physics. Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction.” — John Avlon, “The Rise of Political Extremism and the Decline of Decency,” U.S. News (02010-04-08)

Quote of the Day

“Politics follows the lines of physics. Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction.” — John Avlon, “The Rise of Political Extremism and the Decline of Decency,” U.S. News (02010-04-08)

Quote of the Day

“Politics follows the lines of physics. Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction.” — John Avlon, “The Rise of Political Extremism and the Decline of Decency,” U.S. News (02010-04-08)

Quote of the Day

“Politics follows the lines of physics. Every action creates an equal and opposite reaction.” — John Avlon, “The Rise of Political Extremism and the Decline of Decency,” U.S. News (02010-04-08)

https://www.europesays.com/uk/1094056/ Astronomers Detect Gamma-Ray Burst’s Magnetic Fingerprint #FaradayRotation #GammaRayBurst #GRB260310A #MagneticField #nsf #Physics #Polarization #PolarizedLight #RadioSignal #Science #UK #UnitedKingdom #VLA

Astronomers Detect Gamma-Ray Burst’s Magnetic Fingerprint

Using NSF’s Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers made the first radio detection of polarized light and Faraday rotation…
#NewsBeep #News #Physics #CA #Canada #Faradayrotation #gamma-rayburst #GRB260310A #MagneticField #NSF #Polarization #Polarizedlight #radiosignal #Science #VLA
https://www.newsbeep.com/ca/806783/

Astronomers Detect Gamma-Ray Burst’s Magnetic Fingerprint

Using NSF’s Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers made the first radio detection of polarized light and Faraday rotation…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Physics #Faradayrotation #gamma-rayburst #GRB260310A #magneticfield #nsf #polarization #Polarizedlight #radiosignal #Science #VLA
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/767230/

Astronomers Detect Gamma-Ray Burst’s Magnetic Fingerprint

Using NSF’s Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers made the first radio detection of polarized light and Faraday rotation…
#NewsBeep #News #US #USA #UnitedStates #UnitedStatesOfAmerica #Physics #Faradayrotation #gamma-rayburst #GRB260310A #magneticfield #nsf #polarization #Polarizedlight #radiosignal #Science #VLA
https://www.newsbeep.com/us/767230/

Astronomers Detect Gamma-Ray Burst’s Magnetic Fingerprint

Using NSF’s Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers made the first radio detection of polarized light and Faraday rotation…
#NewsBeep #News #Physics #Faradayrotation #gamma-rayburst #GRB260310A #MagneticField #NSF #polarization #Polarizedlight #radiosignal #Science #UK #UnitedKingdom #VLA
https://www.newsbeep.com/uk/695702/

https://www.europesays.com/ie/587768/ Astronomers Detect Gamma-Ray Burst’s Magnetic Fingerprint #Éire #FaradayRotation #GammaRayBurst #GRB260310A #IE #Ireland #MagneticField #NSF #polarization #PolarizedLight #RadioSignal #Science #VLA

https://www.europesays.com/people/150540/ Who Actually Rules Between Elections? The Crisis of Democracy #CapitalFlight #DemocracyCrisis #DemocracyImplosion #DemocracyCapitalism #DemocraticSovereignty #DonaldTrumpDemocracy #FriedrichMerz #FriedrichMerzDemocracy #MoniedMonarchy #Polarization #PoliticalLegitimacy #PoliticalReform #RadicalParties #StructuralPowerOfCapital #SystemicTensions #USOligarchy #USWealthTax

It seems that this part of the Fediverse, with Mastodon, is increasingly evolving into its own echo chambers—in the form of individual instances where only one political viewpoint or opinion is accepted, and anything that deviates from it is simply considered evil and must be fiercely opposed.

It’s concerning to see that many people are now just talking at each other instead of with each other, because opposing political views aren’t tolerated.

I’m seriously considering whether I want to remain a part of this with my own instance, or whether the time has come to close this chapter and simply disappear into the crowd from now on. 🤔

(Directly translated with deepl.com)
#Society #Thoughts #Mastodon #Fediverse #Politics #Polarization #Tolerance

It seems that this part of the Fediverse, with Mastodon, is increasingly evolving into its own echo chambers—in the form of individual instances where only one political viewpoint or opinion is accepted, and anything that deviates from it is simply considered evil and must be fiercely opposed.

It’s concerning to see that many people are now just talking at each other instead of with each other, because opposing political views aren’t tolerated.

I’m seriously considering whether I want to remain a part of this with my own instance, or whether the time has come to close this chapter and simply disappear into the crowd from now on. 🤔

(Directly translated with deepl.com)
#Society #Thoughts #Mastodon #Fediverse #Politics #Polarization #Tolerance

It seems that this part of the Fediverse, with Mastodon, is increasingly evolving into its own echo chambers—in the form of individual instances where only one political viewpoint or opinion is accepted, and anything that deviates from it is simply considered evil and must be fiercely opposed.

It’s concerning to see that many people are now just talking at each other instead of with each other, because opposing political views aren’t tolerated.

I’m seriously considering whether I want to remain a part of this with my own instance, or whether the time has come to close this chapter and simply disappear into the crowd from now on. 🤔

(Directly translated with deepl.com)
#Society #Thoughts #Mastodon #Fediverse #Politics #Polarization #Tolerance

It seems that this part of the Fediverse, with Mastodon, is increasingly evolving into its own echo chambers—in the form of individual instances where only one political viewpoint or opinion is accepted, and anything that deviates from it is simply considered evil and must be fiercely opposed.

It’s concerning to see that many people are now just talking at each other instead of with each other, because opposing political views aren’t tolerated.

I’m seriously considering whether I want to remain a part of this with my own instance, or whether the time has come to close this chapter and simply disappear into the crowd from now on. 🤔

(Directly translated with deepl.com)
#Society #Thoughts #Mastodon #Fediverse #Politics #Polarization #Tolerance

It seems that this part of the Fediverse, with Mastodon, is increasingly evolving into its own echo chambers—in the form of individual instances where only one political viewpoint or opinion is accepted, and anything that deviates from it is simply considered evil and must be fiercely opposed.

It’s concerning to see that many people are now just talking at each other instead of with each other, because opposing political views aren’t tolerated.

I’m seriously considering whether I want to remain a part of this with my own instance, or whether the time has come to close this chapter and simply disappear into the crowd from now on. 🤔

(Directly translated with deepl.com)
#Society #Thoughts #Mastodon #Fediverse #Politics #Polarization #Tolerance

Canada: a place where policy still drives voting

Clareta Treger examines whether political identities dominate policy preferences in Canadians’ political decision-making process. Her recent work finds…
#Canada #identity #identitypolitics #ideology #polarisation #polarization #voterbehaviour
https://www.europesays.com/canada/122697/

“What #Muskism is meant to solve remains unclear; if anything, it promises greater #polarization, #destabilization, and #conflict.” open.substack.com/pub/victorsh... #Musk #books #BookSky

Elon Musk for the Not-So-Perpl...

“What #Muskism is meant to solve remains unclear; if anything, it promises greater #polarization, #destabilization, and #conflict.” open.substack.com/pub/victorsh... #Musk #books #BookSky

Elon Musk for the Not-So-Perpl...

“What #Muskism is meant to solve remains unclear; if anything, it promises greater #polarization, #destabilization, and #conflict.” open.substack.com/pub/victorsh... #Musk #books #BookSky

Elon Musk for the Not-So-Perpl...

“What #Muskism is meant to solve remains unclear; if anything, it promises greater #polarization, #destabilization, and #conflict.” open.substack.com/pub/victorsh... #Musk #books #BookSky

Elon Musk for the Not-So-Perpl...

“What #Muskism is meant to solve remains unclear; if anything, it promises greater #polarization, #destabilization, and #conflict.” open.substack.com/pub/victorsh... #Musk #books #BookSky

Elon Musk for the Not-So-Perpl...

A great set of articles on #trust and #collaboration in #Science, from #Nature:

"Trust in science. How to build and maintain public support in an era of #polarization"

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-026-00025-w/index.html

A great set of articles on #trust and #collaboration in #Science, from #Nature:

"Trust in science. How to build and maintain public support in an era of #polarization"

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-026-00025-w/index.html

A great set of articles on #trust and #collaboration in #Science, from #Nature:

"Trust in science. How to build and maintain public support in an era of #polarization"

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-026-00025-w/index.html

A great set of articles on #trust and #collaboration in #Science, from #Nature:

"Trust in science. How to build and maintain public support in an era of #polarization"

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-026-00025-w/index.html

A great set of articles on #trust and #collaboration in #Science, from #Nature:

"Trust in science. How to build and maintain public support in an era of #polarization"

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-026-00025-w/index.html

https://www.europesays.com/ch/94832/ This New Pixel Could Turn Screens Into Cameras #FourierPixel #Nanotechnology #Optics #photonics #Pixels #Polarization #Zürich

An oldie but a goodie:

https://www.the-reframe.com/polarization-and-strife/

#uspol #polarization

An oldie but a goodie:

https://www.the-reframe.com/polarization-and-strife/

#uspol #polarization

An oldie but a goodie:

https://www.the-reframe.com/polarization-and-strife/

#uspol #polarization

An oldie but a goodie:

https://www.the-reframe.com/polarization-and-strife/

#uspol #polarization

An oldie but a goodie:

https://www.the-reframe.com/polarization-and-strife/

#uspol #polarization

[en] Americans more willing to engage with opposing opinions than generally presumed

"Listening to someone who disagrees with you on a #controversial topic, but shares basic values, might not change your mind – but it could moderate an extreme position, reducing #polarization …"

Prof. Michèle #Belot: "The question is whether people are then willing to engage with what they hear. Promoting common values is not a miracle cure, but our evidence indicates people being more willing to reconsider their views if they know the other person shares common values."

"The main experiment surveyed a representative sample of roughly 2,500 Americans, soliciting views on three divisive issues: #abortion, #gun laws and #immigration ...

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/06/listening-political-opponents-who-share-common-values-can-ease-polarization

#echochamber #cornell #economics #research

[en] Americans more willing to engage with opposing opinions than generally presumed

"Listening to someone who disagrees with you on a #controversial topic, but shares basic values, might not change your mind – but it could moderate an extreme position, reducing #polarization …"

Prof. Michèle #Belot: "The question is whether people are then willing to engage with what they hear. Promoting common values is not a miracle cure, but our evidence indicates people being more willing to reconsider their views if they know the other person shares common values."

"The main experiment surveyed a representative sample of roughly 2,500 Americans, soliciting views on three divisive issues: #abortion, #gun laws and #immigration ...

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/06/listening-political-opponents-who-share-common-values-can-ease-polarization

#echochamber #cornell #economics #research

[en] Americans more willing to engage with opposing opinions than generally presumed

"Listening to someone who disagrees with you on a #controversial topic, but shares basic values, might not change your mind – but it could moderate an extreme position, reducing #polarization …"

Prof. Michèle #Belot: "The question is whether people are then willing to engage with what they hear. Promoting common values is not a miracle cure, but our evidence indicates people being more willing to reconsider their views if they know the other person shares common values."

"The main experiment surveyed a representative sample of roughly 2,500 Americans, soliciting views on three divisive issues: #abortion, #gun laws and #immigration ...

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/06/listening-political-opponents-who-share-common-values-can-ease-polarization

#echochamber #cornell #economics #research

[en] Americans more willing to engage with opposing opinions than generally presumed

"Listening to someone who disagrees with you on a #controversial topic, but shares basic values, might not change your mind – but it could moderate an extreme position, reducing #polarization …"

Prof. Michèle #Belot: "The question is whether people are then willing to engage with what they hear. Promoting common values is not a miracle cure, but our evidence indicates people being more willing to reconsider their views if they know the other person shares common values."

"The main experiment surveyed a representative sample of roughly 2,500 Americans, soliciting views on three divisive issues: #abortion, #gun laws and #immigration ...

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/06/listening-political-opponents-who-share-common-values-can-ease-polarization

#echochamber #cornell #economics #research

[en] Americans more willing to engage with opposing opinions than generally presumed

"Listening to someone who disagrees with you on a #controversial topic, but shares basic values, might not change your mind – but it could moderate an extreme position, reducing #polarization …"

Prof. Michèle #Belot: "The question is whether people are then willing to engage with what they hear. Promoting common values is not a miracle cure, but our evidence indicates people being more willing to reconsider their views if they know the other person shares common values."

"The main experiment surveyed a representative sample of roughly 2,500 Americans, soliciting views on three divisive issues: #abortion, #gun laws and #immigration ...

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/06/listening-political-opponents-who-share-common-values-can-ease-polarization

#echochamber #cornell #economics #research

Economics expert pinpoints the exact moment in 2012 when ‘America went to hell’

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.upworthy.com/americas-2012-vibe-shift-explained-ex1/

Economics expert pinpoints the exact moment in 2012 when ‘America went to hell’

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.upworthy.com/americas-2012-vibe-shift-explained-ex1/

Economics expert pinpoints the exact moment in 2012 when ‘America went to hell’

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.upworthy.com/americas-2012-vibe-shift-explained-ex1/

Economics expert pinpoints the exact moment in 2012 when ‘America went to hell’

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.upworthy.com/americas-2012-vibe-shift-explained-ex1/

In Spain, Pope Leo XIV urges Europe to overcome polarization

MADRID (RNS) — Pope Leo XIV made an appeal to cast aside polarization in his address on Saturday…
#Spain #ES #Europe #Europa #EU #PapaltriptoSpain #peace #polarization #PopeLeoXIV #Vatican
https://www.europesays.com/spain/35794/

In Spain, Pope Leo XIV urges Europe to overcome polarization

MADRID (RNS) — Pope Leo XIV made an appeal to cast aside polarization in his address on Saturday…
#Europe #EU #European #PapaltriptoSpain #peace #polarization #Pope-Leo-XIV #Vatican
https://www.europesays.com/europe/62099/

https://www.europesays.com/uk/1009041/ In Spain, Pope Leo XIV urges Europe to overcome polarization #EU #Europe #European #PapalTripToSpain #peace #Polarization #PopeLeoXIV #Vatican