Yesterday the New York Post reported that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is having an affair with Democratic strategist Tim Mynett . The allegation was made in divorce papers filed by his wife . In July , Omar filed for divorce from her current husband . A refresher :\nDr. Beth Jordan Mynett says her cheating spouse , Tim Mynett , told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative and that he even made a “ shocking declaration of love ” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife , alleges the filing , submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday .\nIt turns out Mynett 's firm was funneled a boat load of Omar 's campaign cash . He was paid more than $ 200,000 for consulting and the campaign reimbursed at least $ 21,000 for his personal travel . That travel was n't properly reported or itemized .\nAn official complaint regarding the large payments to Mynett 's firm has already been filed , alleging she broke the law .\n`` Today , NLPC filed a Complaint with the Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) against Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-MN ) alleging that she and her campaign violated the prohibition on the personal use of campaign funds by reimbursing political consultant Tim Mynett for his travel in 2019 . The Complaint also alleges that Omar and her campaign failed to itemize the travel reimbursements , as required , '' the National Legal and Policy Center released in a statement Wednesday .\n`` Although Mynett 's formal relationship with Rep. Omar 's campaign began in July 2018 , with the payment of $ 7000 directly to Mynett , the reimbursements for Mynett 's travel did not commence until April 2019 , the same month that Dr. Mynett alleges in her filing that her husband told her of the affair , and made a 'shocking declaration of love ' for Rep. Omar , '' the complaint states .\nAccording to the divorce filing , Mynett 's `` more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than his actual work commitments . ''\nAnd then there are these timing details from the Washington Examiner :\nHere 's the odd thing : The overwhelming majority of Omar 's funds spent on the E Street Group were paid after she won the contested primary and during the totally noncompetitive general election race in her D+26 district . Contrary to FEC rules , Omar 's filings did not designate whether her E Street Group disbursements ( or any of her disbursements ) were for the primary election or the general election .\nOmar is refusing to discuss her `` personal life '' and has not commented on the issue of campaign funds being improperly used .\n`` I have no interest in allowing the conversation about my personal life to continue and so I have no desire to discuss it , '' Omar told CBS Minnesota today .\nIn June , Omar was ordered to payback thousands of dollars to her campaign after breaking campaign finance laws .


Judge Rules Fewer Political Groups Can Keep Their Donors Secret\nA U.S. district court judge awarded a victory to campaign finance reform advocates on Tuesday when she ruled the Federal Election Commission was too loosely enforcing a campaign finance regulation passed in 2007 , allowing some big-money donors to remain anonymous .\nThe Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act required the identification of contributors giving $ 1,000 or more to fund `` issue ads '' near Election Day . But since it was enacted , only a few of those contributors have been revealed , because the FEC ruled those disclosures were n't required for ads supporting specific candidates . The Los Angeles Times reported the details of the ruling :\n`` The decision concerns a type of issue ads that became ubiquitous in recent elections . Typically , the ads suggest that voters call a senator or congressman and give an opinion about something . When those ads mention a candidate and are run close to elections , they 're known as 'electioneering ' communications , and the amount of spending has to be reported . ''\nRep. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . ) , along with reform advocacy groups Campaign Legal Center , Public Citizen and Democracy 21 , sued the FEC in 2011 to overturn the 2007 regulation . The Associated Press reported that Democracy 21 's president , Fred Werthiemer claimed the FEC allowed loopholes in the regulation to fund federal elections with `` dark money . ''\nVan Hollen called Judge Amy Berman Jackson 's Tuesday decision `` a victory for democracy . '' His partners in the lawsuit also hailed the ruling .\n`` We are seeing a full-throated endorsement of disclosure by the lower courts , '' said Tara Malloy with the Campaign Legal Center . `` We are enjoying the victory , though I am sure the fight will continue . ''\nConservative groups that attempted to intervene in the case have voiced their disappointment . Thomas Kirby , an attorney who represents the Center for Individual Freedom , told The Washington Post that `` the ruling created an upside-down world in which greater burdens are imposed on those who merely refer to a candidate than on those who expressly advocate election or defeat of a candidate . ''\nIn Tuesday 's decision , Jackson ruled that the FEC `` overstepped '' when it wrote the 2007 regulation into the campaign finance laws . That regulation , among other cases , led to the victory of the 2010 Citizens United case in the Supreme Court , which allowed nonprofits to hide their funding sources .\nThat decision essentially deleted the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold Act . The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that over $ 140 million of the so-called `` dark money '' was spent in the 2014 election . Bloomberg 's Businessweek reports that tens of thousands of TV ads run this year by GOP fundraising operation Crossroad GPS , founded by former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove , `` helped Republicans win control of the Senate . ''\nJackson 's decision that the regulation was `` arbitrary , capricious and contrary to law '' recalled an original report by the Sunlight Foundation in January . The report stated that Crossroads GPS violated election laws by failing to register itself as a political group instead of a nonprofit , social-welfare operation — a distinction that came with a huge impact .\n`` In recent years , the group Crossroads GPS has spent tens of millions on political ads fueled by anonymous donors . Registering as a political group would have forced the nonprofit to begin naming its big-time benefactors . Crossroads has also become a model for hundreds of other committees that during the last election cycle pumped more than $ 300 million into the campaign — an estimate that is undoubtedly low because of the lack of disclosure required of these organizations . ''\nIt was also noted in the judge 's ruling that the FEC reported their findings in 2007 at 5:05 p.m. before a weekend — what 's known in the news industry as a `` Friday night news dump '' because people are believed to be paying the least attention to the news during that portion of the week .\nThe FEC now has the option of either appealing Jackson 's decision or change its regulations . The six members are evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and likely will have a difficult time agreeing on a course of action .\nFEC Chairman Lee Goodman told The Washington Post , `` I 've always said that I 'm open to judicial guidance on this issue , and now we 'll have to study the court 's opinion to determine exactly what obligation the FEC has in response . ''


More trouble is looming for Sen. Robert Menendez ( D ) of New Jersey : According to an Associated Press investigation , the embattled New Jersey Democrat sponsored legislation that , if passed , would have aided one of his biggest donor 's investment in a natural gas vehicle conversion company .\nThe report , published Monday , stated that Senator Menendez sponsored a bill to give tax credits and grants to truck and heavy vehicle fleets that converted to natural gas . The bill could have benefited Salomon Melgen , the Florida eye doctor whose close relationship with Menendez has spurred a Senate ethics investigation . Dr. Melgen is an investor and member of the board of directors of Gaseous Fuel Systems Corp. , which designs , manufactures , and sells products to convert diesel- and gas-fuel vehicles to natural gas .\nMenendez ’ s backing of the natural-gas bill marks another convergence of interest between the politician and a major donor and is a thorn for the senator . But political watchers in New Jersey say the bill sponsorship is one part of a larger clean-energy agenda from the senator , who has a history of supporting environmental causes . As such , it is unlikely this latest allegation represents a conflict of interest , says Brigid Harrison , a political scientist at Montclair State University , who predicts that Menendez will survive the latest storm .\n“ I ’ m still not convinced ... that this kind of behavior reaches to the status where it becomes enormously problematic in voters ’ minds , ” says Professor Harrison . “ I ’ m not seeing any illegality or conflict of interest here . ”\nThe bill-sponsorship revelation revives the larger issue of the senator ’ s relationship with Melgen , with recent reports suggesting that Menendez was providing political favors for Melgen in exchange for campaign support .\nMenendez used Melgen ’ s private jet for two personal trips to the Dominican Republic in 2010 , flights that were not reimbursed until three years later , when news reports called the senator ’ s conduct into question .\nMenendez also intervened in a Medicare billing dispute between Melgen and federal authorities , as well as a port security contract , allegedly in order to protect the interests of his friend and donor , according to news reports . The allegations are compounded by a $ 700,000 donation Melgen made to Majority PAC , a `` super political-action committee '' created to elect Senate Democrats that ultimately made a $ 582,500 contribution to Menendez ’ s 2012 reelection campaign , according to the Center for Responsive Politics .\nMenendez has vehemently denied all allegations of impropriety , including any allegations of conflict-of-interest stemming from this latest report . His office did not respond to calls regarding his sponsorship of the natural gas bill .\nAccording to the AP report , Menendez joined Senate majority leader Harry Reid ( D ) and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch ( R ) as a key backer of the natural gas bill . Soon after , Melgen joined the board of directors of Gaseous Fuel Systems Corp. , which makes technology to perform such conversions . Though his investment in the company is confidential under US Securities and Exchange Commission rules , the company required a minimum investment of $ 51,500 , according to the AP .\nUltimately , the bill didn ’ t get enough votes to make it out of the Senate . However , while it was under consideration , a consultant for Gaseous Fuel Systems spent $ 220,000 lobbying Menendez and other congressional officials , according to interviews and Senate records as reported by the AP .\n“ There is no evidence that Menendez offered direct help or intervened on behalf of the company or Melgen , ” the AP said in its report . “ Instead , the connection between the two men ’ s interests in natural gas is the latest example of the close symmetry between the senator … and his millionaire backer . ”\nEvidence of “ close symmetry ” in this latest development , say analysts , is not enough to topple Menendez .\n“ Menendez has been involved in clean-energy technology for a long time , ” says Ross Baker , a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick , N.J. “ In light of Melgen 's apparently limited and distant role in GFS , I think it is more of a coincidence than anything more sinister . I think it is as likely that Menendez got Melgen interested in converting truck fleets to natural gas as it was the other way around . ”\nOther clean-energy initiatives the senator has supported include co-sponsoring legislation aimed at jump-starting offshore wind energy , extending solar energy tax credits , and creating block grants to spur green-energy projects .\nMenendez recently reintroduced the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act and Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act , legislation he originally introduced in the 112th Congress to end tax subsidies for the “ Big 5 ” oil companies .\n“ It isn ’ t that this came out of the blue , it ’ s part of a larger cohesive agenda ... to deal with energy issues the country is facing , ” says Harrison of Montclair State University . “ His record is an accurate reflection of his policy concerns , and this is one part of that . ”\nAnd though the AP report singled out Menendez , the senator isn ’ t alone in supporting the natural gas bill – or in sharing a passion with supporters for similar causes . In fact , the House version of the natural gas legislation had 181 co-sponsors .\nThe natural gas industry spends hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying members of Congress , including Menendez and his staff . “ They are not alone in being lobbied , ” says Harrison .\nMenendez ’ s ethics controversy has had an impact on his poll numbers , and this latest development may further damage the senator ’ s image .\nA Quinnipiac University poll found Menendez ’ s approval ratings plummeted 15 percentage points between January and February , as news reports emerged about his relationship with Melgen . His approval rating dropped form 51 percent in mid-January to 36 percent in mid-February . The same poll found only 28 percent of New Jersey voters said the senator was “ honest and trustworthy . ”\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\n“ I don ’ t think these microbial issues that deal with campaign finance and sponsorship of legislation are enough to make a difference in most voter 's minds in this state , ” says Harrison .


Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made her opposition to pricey fundraisers a staple of her presidential campaign . “ I don ’ t do big-dollar fundraisers at all , ” she told “ Tonight Show ” host Jimmy Fallon on Wednesday .\nBut Warren has carved out a workaround to her pledge by speaking at high-dollar fundraisers for the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) , whose financial support in the general election will be crucial to Warren if she is the party ’ s nominee .\nWarren on Thursday spoke at the DNC ’ s IWillVote Gala fundraiser in Boston . The DNC didn ’ t publicize ticket prices for the event , and didn ’ t return an email inquiring about the costs , but an archived invitation shows the DNC charged up to $ 50,000 per ticket package when it held the same event in Atlanta earlier in 2019 .\nContribution levels for the DNC ’ s IWillVote Gala in Atlanta in June ranged from $ 1,000 to $ 50,000 , with donors receiving better perks for larger donations , according to the Internet Archive ’ s Wayback Machine .\nWarren , whose campaign did not return an email seeking comment , also spoke at another high-dollar fundraiser , the DNC ’ s Women ’ s Leadership Forum Conference , which took place over two days in mid-October . ( RELATED : Elizabeth Warren Denied Sending Her Kids To Private School , Despite Sending Son To Elite Private School )\nContribution levels for the event ranged from $ 100 for a “ young professional , ” to $ 50,000 for a “ WLF Ambassador , ” the perks of which included ten VIP tickets to the Women Will Vote Gala , according to an archived version of the invitation page .\nThe liberal senator in August spoke to party donors at another DNC fundraiser in San Francisco , Politico reported .\nWarren in October defended attending high-dollar fundraisers for the DNC . “ I will help the party , ” The Associated Press quoted her saying . “ I am not going to ask Democrats to unilaterally disarm in the face of an onslaught of money . ”


Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo has dipped into her campaign fund to buy more than $ 2,000 in gifts for her good friend and fellow Californian , House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman .\nRep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) has dropped nearly $ 3,400 in campaign cash servicing his BMW in Alexandria , Virginia .\nOther lawmakers have used their war chests for European travels , upgrade airline seats and access the American Airlines Admirals Club in airports across the country . In one case , a retired member of Congress with money left in his account used the cash to pay his wife roughly $ 20,000 since Election Day .\nDisgraced former Rep. Aaron Schock ( R-Ill. ) resigned after a firestorm of criticism over his use of campaign dollars to underwrite a lavish lifestyle , among other alleged misdeeds . But the truth is , while Schock was by all accounts an extreme case , he is far from the exception . It fact , elected officials routinely tap their campaign accounts to pay for things that appear to have little to do with seeking another term in Congress , according to a ███ review of campaign documents .\nIndeed , donor dollars can , at times , resemble a slush fund . And experts say the reason is because lawmakers have almost complete latitude to decide what constitutes a campaign expense .\n“ The House Ethics Committee typically gives ( members of Congress ) a wide berth in defining what is considered campaign or officially connected activities , ” said Kenneth Gross , a veteran ethics and election lawyer at Skadden , Arps , Slate , Meagher & Flom . “ However , under House and [ Federal Election Commission ] rules , personal use of campaign funds is strictly prohibited . ”\nIn the wake of revelations that Schock allegedly misrepresented his congressional expenses by tens of thousands of dollars , Michigan Republican Rep. Candice Miller ’ s House Administration Committee is reviewing internal procedures and controls on the spending of taxpayer dollars . A grand jury is currently hearing testimony related to Schock ’ s alleged misspending of taxpayer dollars .\nBut unlike official expenditures , campaign expenditures are barely monitored . Case in point : Schock publicly admitted to several errors on FEC reports and promised to file amendments . More than a month after resigning , the Illinois Republican still has not filed any corrected records .\nCongress ' petty cash problem Members of Congress have almost total discretion to determine what is a legitimate campaign expense . Here are some of the more unusual ways they have used donor dollars : Rep. Anna Eshoo ( D-Ca . ) : Gifts for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman , more than $ 2,000 . Rep. Bob Brady ( D-Pa. ) : Christmas gifts from Capital Grille , upwards of $ 10,000 per year . Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) : Servicing his BMW in Alexandria , Virginia , nearly $ 3,400 . Sen. John Cornyn , ( R-Texas ) : “ Beverages for meal ” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa , $ 336 . Rep. Jason Smith ( R-Mo . ) : 18 trips to Smoothie King since June 2014 , $ 20.39 on six occasions . Rep. Raul Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) : Regular visits to Tune Inn , a dive bar on Pennsylvania Avenue , more than $ 1,000 for over 20 trips since Sept. 2013 . Rep. Louie Gohmert ( R-Texas ) : Three expenditures at the Andaz Hotel in London in November and December , more than $ 5,400 . Rep. Gene Green ( D-Texas ) : Gifts for his D.C. and district staff , roughly $ 3,000 . Retired Rep. Buck McKeon ( R-Ca . ) : Money left in campaign post-retirement in January , $ 250,000 .\nPaying for gifts is one of the unique ways that members of Congress use their campaign accounts . Most corporations wouldn ’ t allow the boss to withdraw thousands of dollars from business coffers without any oversight to hand out cash gifts to employees , yet that ’ s essentially what Rep. Gene Green does . At the end of each year , the Texas Democrat takes roughly $ 3,000 from his reelection fund and gives each staffer in his Washington and district offices $ 200 as a holiday present .\n“ I don ’ t buy gifts , ” Green said . “ I give , typically , [ it ] started out at $ 100 and now I give the staff whether D.C. staff or district staff $ 200 at Christmas . ”\nDozens of members of Congress reward people who work on their reelection campaigns .\nRep. Robert Brady , a powerful Democrat from Philadelphia , shells out more than $ 10,000 every year at Capital Grille , buying Christmas gifts for campaign aides . He hasn ’ t won with less than 74 percent of the vote since he was first elected in 1998 .\n“ Since members run for reelection every two years , it ’ s important to say ‘ thank you ’ to the men and women who volunteer so much of their time and energy to his campaigns , ” said Stanley V. White , Brady ’ s chief of staff . “ These gifts were for political activists and ward leaders who are integral to Congressman Brady ’ s reelection efforts . ”\nHouse Majority Whip Steve Scalise ( R-La . ) has gone on a shopping spree at Vineyard Vines , the Connecticut-based preppy clothing company — to the tune of $ 12,295 in the past five months . He likes to buy gifts at the beginning of each session of Congress for members of his vote-counting team , a spokesman said .\nEshoo , who also has not faced a serious reelection threat in two decades , says she is “ grateful to colleagues and constituents who support me in my reelection efforts . ”\n“ I tend to express my appreciation with a token of thanks and to remember them on birthdays and holidays , ” Eshoo said in an interview . “ Why give to the leader ? Why have I done that for the leader , amongst others ? No one has been more consistently thoughtful or actively supportive than she has been . I always think a ‘ thank you ’ should be as memorable as the kindness that prompted it , and they carry memorable items . ”\nEshoo said she couldn ’ t recall what she has bought for Pelosi , but said she believes she ’ s given the Democratic leader scarves .\nOther lawmakers have tapped their campaign kitties to travel abroad .\nRepublican Rep. Louie Gohmert represents a district on the eastern border of Texas , but one of his campaign line items last year was $ 272 for a meeting room at the Intercontinental Victoria Island in Lagos , Nigeria . In three expenditures in November and December , Gohmert paid more than $ 5,400 at the Andaz Hotel in London . He also spent time in Oxford at the Old Bank Hotel .\nGohmert ’ s spokesman , Kimberly Willingham , said Gohmert was giving political speeches in England , but did not respond to questions about whom Gohmert addressed . She suggested ███ write an “ unbiased article about a congressman saving taxpayers significant amounts of money by legally using funds he has raised instead of taxpayer funds . ”\nSen. John Cornyn , the No . 2 Senate Republican who is also from Texas , spent $ 336 for “ beverages for meal ” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa . Cornyn bought the drinks at La Combe in Cape Town , which is located on an organic wine estate and considered one of the top restaurants in the world . Cornyn ’ s office didn ’ t respond to multiple requests for comment .\nRep. Dan Lipinski ( D-Ill. ) , whose district includes the suburbs Chicago , went to the Tango Hotel Roma and Villa Tucolana Roma last year , running up a bill of more than $ 750 . A spokesman said the congressman was in Rome for the International Catholic Legislators Network conference .\nDublin , Ireland , also appeared on campaign disclosure forms . In 2013 , Rep. John Larson ( D-Conn. ) had a “ political ” meal at The Merrion Hotel there that cost $ 112 . Rep. Richard Neal ( D-Mass . ) also visited Dublin on the campaign dime in both 2011 and 2012 , shelling out thousands of dollars for stays at the Shelbourne Meridien and the Westbury Hotel , and the Europa Hotel in Belfast . Neal ’ s office said he spoke at the Ireland-U.S. Council ’ s annual meeting and the annual political conference of Sinn Féin .\nFromer Rep. Aaron Schock , Rep. Steve Scalise , Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Howard P. “ Buck ” McKeon are pictured . | AP and Getty Photos\nOther politicians have favorite dining spots in Washington that they frequent on the campaign dime . Rep. Jason Smith ( R-Mo . ) has gone to Smoothie King in D.C. and Missouri more than a dozen times since June .\nJosh Haynes , his chief of staff , says Smith “ doesn ’ t drink coffee , and when he meets in the morning with elected officials , donors or staff they oftentimes will get a smoothie. ” However , during his campaign last year , Smith set a goal of having coffee with every member of Congress by the end of this term .\nRep. Raúl Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) , meanwhile , is a regular at Tune Inn , a dive bar blocks away from the Capitol . His campaign has foot the bill for meals there more than 20 times since September 2013 , totaling more than $ 1,000 . Sometimes the bill is as small as $ 20 , other times $ 130 . Grijalva ’ s spokesman provided receipts that show that his political director , Jose Miranda , was reimbursed for the political meals , not the congressman .\nCuellar ’ s office , meanwhile , says it ’ s perfectly permissible for his campaign to pay for repairs on his BMW in Washington . His political aide Colin Strother said he drives the vehicle 90 percent of the time for political work , including to and from the Capitol , to events on K Street and to the airport when he flies home to Laredo .\n“ Using campaign funds for things like maintenance and repair of a vehicle used for campaign purposes is completely legal , ” Strother said .\nBuck McKeon ’ s campaign spending is perhaps the most eye-popping — because he ’ s not even in Congress anymore . The California Republican retired from the House in January after more than two decades with more than a quarter of a million dollars left in his campaign coffers .\nHe ’ s used the money to pay his wife about $ 20,000 since Election Day . Patricia McKeon worked for the congressman for years without pay , the ex-congressman said in an interview , and she ’ s now helping him close out his campaign operation .\n“ If you average that all out over the 22 years , it ’ s a lot less than the indication , ” the ex-congressman asserted . “ People think we paid her that much forever , ” he added , but the fact is “ she worked for years for free . ”


Several key nuances were lost in Donald Trump ’ s boasts about his fundraising haul on Tuesday , nearly 24 hours after the debate . | AP Photo Trump fundraising record not all it appears While the GOP nominee raised big money after debate , he may not be able to use much of it .\nWAUKESHA , Wis. — Donald Trump ’ s campaign was desperate to change the subject after his shaky debate performance on Monday , and it found just the story to do it — a record fundraising surge that Trump says was powered by small donors , proving he actually got a boost from the debate .\nBut a closer examination of the claims around Trump ’ s fundraising surge — which the campaign says yielded $ 18 million in the 24 hours after the debate through online donations and a big-donor phone bank — suggests the haul might not be quite as significant to Trump as he and his campaign have made it out to be .\nBased on the information voluntarily released by the campaign , it ’ s unclear how much of the windfall will go to campaign versus the Republican National Committee , or how much of the total came in pledges as opposed to actual cash . Nor is it clear how much came from the small donors about whom Trump boasts .\nSome of those answers wo n't be revealed until the middle of October , when the campaign and its joint fundraising committees with the RNC will be required to file financial reports with the Federal Election Commission . But other details — including the amount raised from small donors in the 24 hours after the debate — may never be independently verifiable , thanks to the nuances of campaign finance reporting requirements .\nThose nuances were lost in Trump ’ s boasts about the fundraising haul during a Tuesday evening speech in Melbourne , Florida , nearly 24 hours after the debate .\n“ Today , we had something where I understand through largely small donors and some others , we had the biggest day we ’ ve ever had , ” Trump told the crowd in a humid airplane hangar . “ Because of the success last night of the debate , they raised almost $ 18 million today . Can you believe it ? $ 18 million . That ’ s a lot . $ 18 million in one day , think of that . And that was largely because of last night . ”\nTrump carried the theme through Wednesday night , boasting to a raucous crowd at the Waukesha County Expo Center about the $ 54 million he ’ d put into his campaign , and adding “ but we ’ re being helped by the small donors . And yesterday , because of the tremendous success of the debate , we raised almost $ 18 million in one day . ”\nIf Trump ’ s post-debate fundraising haul is anywhere near $ 18 million , it would be a major boost for a campaign that has lagged behind that of Hillary Clinton in fundraising and advertising . ( In fact , Trump 's campaign has said it plans to spend the cash infusion on a planned $ 140 million ad buy . ) And it would stand as the biggest single-day fundraising haul , by far , of Trump 's campaign , though it ’ s not possible to track such tallies precisely .\nBut it ’ s become an increasing political tactic to embellish selective details about fundraising — especially small-donor fundraising — to enhance the appearance of grass-roots momentum at critical moments of a campaign . Clinton used the tactic during her unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign and again after her party ’ s nominating convention in July . Her campaign boasted that in the 24 hours after she accepted the Democratic presidential nomination , it raised $ 8.7 million — which at the time stood among the biggest single-day fundraising tallies .\nA Trump campaign source said that only $ 5 million of the $ 18 million haul came in online donations made directly to the campaign , which tend to be the types of donations most driven by organic grass-roots energy . Online donations also usually are smaller and can be more useful in the long term since the donors who give them can continue to contribute without hitting the cap on donations of $ 2,700 for the primary election and $ 2,700 for the general election .\nThe remaining $ 13 million came through phone call solicitations made as part of a campaign “ call day ” in which about 100 major donors and campaign insiders — including Trump ’ s children and his vice presidential running mate Mike Pence — made telephone solicitations from the campaign ’ s headquarters in Manhattan ’ s Trump Tower .\nThose donations would most likely be larger , since they would come from donors who either had a track record of writing big checks or who knew the person making the call .\nThe campaign source said that the call day donations were about equally split between the campaign and a joint fundraising committee called Trump Victory that includes the Trump campaign , the RNC , and about a dozen state party committees .\nTrump Victory can accept checks as large as $ 449,500 , making it easier to bring in huge sums of cash quickly . But , no matter how large the check to Trump Victory , only $ 2,700 can go to the Trump campaign , with the rest going to the RNC and the state parties .\nSteve Mnuchin , the Trump campaign ’ s finance chairman , would not say how much of Tuesday ’ s haul would end up in the campaign ’ s coffers , but he pointed out that having a well-funded RNC also helps the campaign .\n“ From our standpoint , we were raising money for the joint fundraising committee and the campaign , it ’ s all very important because it ’ s all going to support either the ground campaign or more media , ” said Mnuchin .\nHe participated in the call day and issued a statement afterward declaring that “ with this kind of energy and generous support behind us , we are going to have President Donald J. Trump in the White House . ”\nMnuchin would not comment , however , on how much of the money raised during the call day was in the form of pledges versus actual cash donations .\n“ We have a very high collectability rate on any pledges we get , ” he said . “ We are at close to 100 percent . ”\nBut a leading Republican fundraiser said that , with call days , there ’ s often a “ difference between pledged and collected ” contributions , so finance professionals are “ always skeptical when a call day is included in any explanation . ”\nAdditionally , GOP finance professionals have raised concerns about the return on investment from Trump ’ s small-dollar fundraising operation , which is run largely through a San Antonio-based Web design firm with no previous political experience that has been paid $ 12.5 million by the Trump campaign .\nThe online fundraising effort has relied on heavy spending to rent email lists and place digital ads soliciting small donations , sometimes producing duplicative or poorly targeted results .\nAnd on Wednesday , Trump ’ s campaign sent three very similar emails from his son Eric Trump boasting that the campaign was “ on path now to shatter a 48-hour fundraising record , and you could help us do it , Friend . ”


A protestor outside the location for the 2017 “ Congress of Tomorrow ” Joint Republican Issues Conference in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , January 25 , 2017 . REUTERS/Mark Makela\nConservatives who enter progressive domains like the academy or elite media are quite familiar with the idea of tolerance . Such institutions place an enormous amount of emphasis on it , in fact , so much so that they reserve the right to be intolerant to preserve the tolerant ethos of the community , sometimes explicitly . In one of my favorite First Amendment cases , I sued a university that declared in no uncertain terms , “ Acts of intolerance will not be tolerated . ”\nYes , it used those exact words . Think for a moment — isn ’ t every act of enforcement a new violation that requires a new act of enforcement , triggering another violation ? Ah , never mind . We know what the university wanted , a catch-all provision it could use to expel , punish , and silence anyone who ran afoul of the prevailing campus orthodoxy .\nBut I don ’ t want to focus on intolerance . Let ’ s talk about tolerance , instead . Earlier this week I read an old post by “ Scott Alexander , ” a pseudonymous psychiatrist who writes at the blog Slate Star Codex . Called “ I can tolerate anything except the outgroup , ” it blows up the notion that the kind of inclusion the Left claims it values bears any relationship at all to true tolerance .\nAs Alexander notes , a person on the left will claim that they ’ re tolerant because of their regard for “ gays , lesbians , bisexuals , asexuals , blacks , Hispanics , Asians , transgender people , and Jews. ” But ask that same person a simple question , “ What ’ s wrong with gay people ? ” and the answer is immediate : “ What do you think I am , some kind of homophobic bigot ? Of course I have nothing against gay people . ”\nThen , guess what , you ’ re not tolerating anything . You ’ re mistaking tolerance for fellowship or tolerance for tribalism . The word “ tolerance ” of course implies that there is something to tolerate .\nTo the very marrow of their being , they believe that they ’ re something they ’ re not . They have taken the vice of their particular brand of tribalism and transformed it into the false virtue of fake tolerance .\nI like Alexander ’ s definition of true tolerance : “ Respect and kindness toward members of an outgroup ” — not respect and kindness toward members of what others would define as an outgroup , but rather respect and kindness toward people that are out of your group . His concept reflects Christian values like grace or charity , which imply that there is something to forgive or something to overlook in your relationships with others . When there is nothing to forgive or nothing to overlook and no patience required , there ’ s no tolerance . There ’ s no grace . There ’ s no charity .\nThe result of this flawed understanding is that millions of people misapprehend their own values . To the very marrow of their being , they believe that they ’ re something they ’ re not . They have taken the vice of their particular brand of tribalism and transformed it into the false virtue of fake tolerance .\nTo be clear , there are some progressives who are wise to this game . They ’ ve read their Herbert Marcuse , and they know quite well that the new tolerance — what Marcuse called “ liberating tolerance ” — means “ intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. ” But most progressives haven ’ t read Marcuse . They ’ ve never heard of him , and they ’ d be shocked at the notion that one of the alleged defining characteristics of their lives is a fiction .\nI ’ m of course thinking of all this in connection with The Atlantic ’ s termination of my friend and former colleague Kevin Williamson yesterday . The justification for Kevin ’ s firing — as repeated endlessly on Twitter — is that women don ’ t want to “ share office space with a man who wants them dead. ” There are two easy responses to this assertion .\nFirst , it ’ s false . As Kevin has explained elsewhere , he ’ s generally against the death penalty , he ’ s against lynching , and he ’ s against ex post facto laws . So , no , women would not be sharing office space with someone who “ wants them dead . ”\nSecond , is there no appreciation for Kevin ’ s tolerance ? He ’ s the son of a teen mom , born shortly before Roe v. Wade , and narrowly escaped being aborted . He ’ d be sharing office space with people who believe it would have been totally fine , completely morally acceptable , and possibly virtuous if a doctor had ripped him to pieces in his mother ’ s womb .\nThe bottom line is that one party in this controversy — Kevin Williamson — was willing to be tolerant . As Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg related in his termination memo , Kevin had been “ nothing but professional ” in his interactions . In other words , Kevin had “ shown kindness and respect toward members of [ his ] outgroup . ”\nBut all too many progressives don ’ t see that . To them , there was nothing for Kevin to tolerate . Their views on abortion aren ’ t just tolerable , they ’ re glorious . They ’ re liberating . They ’ re the linchpin of the sexual revolution , the key to women ’ s liberation . What was intolerable was the notion that a man — no matter how courteous and professional in person — could sit next to them advocating ideas they hate .\nThere is a conversation to be had about whether a writer ’ s views should disqualify him from employment at any given magazine . Mission-driven journals , like Reason or The Nation or ███ , hire people who share and broadly advance the mission of the magazine ( while of course permitting and encouraging debate from within their respective ideological camps ) . Journals like The Atlantic at least seem to aspire to something different . They ’ re left-leaning , to be sure , but do not have an explicit ideological bent . In fact , the magazine explicitly claims to be “ of no party or clique ” and has certainly published works from left and right . It ’ s printed my work , for example . I doubt The Nation would be interested in doing the same .\nBut in polarized times , “ of no party or clique ” is a hard space to occupy . It requires moral courage . It requires the ability to withstand considerable internal and external pressure . It requires the ability to treat with respect and kindness even people you might otherwise despise . The Atlantic has the right to define its own mission and message . It has the right to hire and fire writers according to their viewpoints . It ’ s not the government . It ’ s a private actor with its own rights to free speech and freedom of association .\nExercise those rights , but progressives be honest about your purpose . You can call it tribalism . You can call it social justice . Just , please , do not lie and call it tolerance .


A hair ███ owner in Dallas , Texas ; then , armed protestors in Michigan and other states ; recently , images of packed boardwalks and swimming pools ; and now the `` mass debate '' urging parishioners to attend regular religious services .\nAll of this in the face of dire consequences for public health amid an unrelenting global pandemic . These events are a mere smattering of a series of protests throughout the country that seek to resist the `` tyranny '' of state governors who have imposed lockdown restrictions in their states . These protests took what has now become a far too familiar form in American politics , connecting extremists waving Confederate `` battle flags '' and brandishing assault weapons to people demanding a right to shop without taking health precautions .\nAs Republican lawmakers assert that the `` cure ca n't be worse than the disease '' and the need to reopen the economy , they extol a neo–Social Darwinist worldview that privileges a survival of the fittest – or , at least , those who are wealthy enough and have the health insurance to cloister themselves for the duration .\nTo some , this problem may seem to pose a genuine paradox : on the one hand , the rights of the individual and individual choice ( liberty ) and the restriction of that liberty in the face of government actions to protect public health . But this is no paradox at all – in fact , it reflects a deeper degeneracy of the concept of freedom in contemporary American politics and culture . The cracks and fissures in American society that we have seen opening during this pandemic are rooted in a broader change in Americans ' understanding of the concept of freedom and the ways that this has been exploited and manipulated by the powerful . Understanding this requires some sense of where the modern idea of freedom came from and how it was defended .\nThe birth of modern political philosophy had at its core a crucial idea about what political freedom actually meant . According to many early modern political theorists , the concept of liberty denoted the capacity to follow rules and norms that one was able to accept based on one 's conscience . Laws , norms and institutions were not to be arbitrarily enforced upon individuals – i.e. , according to the whim or interest of some powerful agent – but , rather , were to be ratified by one 's own reason and reflection . Liberty was a freedom from dependence and control as well as a freedom to create and follow laws that had the common interest as the foundation of their legitimacy .\nThis idea of liberty as freedom from the domination of others as well as a freedom to create laws and impose them upon one 's own actions in accordance with the common good and interest was worked out by thinkers such as Machiavelli and Spinoza no less than Locke and Jefferson , among others . It was weaponized during the age of democratic revolutions in Britain , the United States , France , and Haiti and formed the basis for a modern view of politics and human freedom .\nBut defenders of monarchy and feudal hierarchy , status and privilege demonized the concept of liberty , likening it to a devolution of order and the slide into chaos . Thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes , Robert Filmer and others saw any notion of liberty as essentially linked to a decay of social order . Hobbes saw liberty as a cause of chaos and a state of nature where each did as he pleased . And as Filmer famously put the matter in the opening chapter of his `` Patriarcha '' ( 1680 ) that it was a new and `` dangerous opinion '' where liberty was essentially the power of each to act without the guidance of a sovereign .\nLocke pointed out that these thinkers confused liberty with license , and later philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau would argue that our freedom as persons was dependent on our ability to think in terms of a `` general will , '' or in the common interest , even as Immanuel Kant would later make the concept of autonomy the cornerstone to any modern notion of freedom . All agreed , in the end , that liberty was the capacity for one to make laws of action for oneself according to reason , and this reason was one that was anchored in the common , universal parameters of our living in a social world with and among others . All agreed that freedom required responsibility : that to be free meant to take on the burden of self-legislation as a member of a free community . Only in this way could the principle of self-determination and self-rule be secured . Without the ethos of social responsibility , freedom would devolve back into tyranny and dominance : if you could not govern yourself as a member of the community , then others would step in to govern for you .\nMuch of American political history took a similar course with respect to the idea of liberty . Initially concerned with the conscience of the individual and the ability to protect property , the concept of liberty gradually matured into one where the freedom of each was interdependent on the freedom of others . After the Civil War and the emergence of the Gilded Age , the Progressive movement began to rework the concept of liberty more extensively . Thinkers such as George Herbert Mead , Charles Cooley and John Dewey reworked liberalism into a doctrine that held that the freedom of the individual was not a matter of removing their constraints to accumulate property or do as they pleased , but one that was a function of the extent to which each could partake in the highest caliber of public goods . The expansion of intelligence , the enrichment of one 's capacity to make choices , deliberate about the problems of their community , were all dependent upon this new concept of the individual . Castigating the persistence of the older , individualistic conception of liberty , Dewey argued in 1935 : `` It is absurd to conceive liberty as that of the business entrepreneur and ignore the immense regimentation to which workers are subjected . . . . [ F ] ull freedom of the human spirit and of individuality can be achieved only as there is effective opportunity to share in the cultural resources of civilization . ''\nThe cultivation of this kind of freedom required a rich nexus of public goods and regulation . Dewey and other progressives rightly saw that modern technological society needed this sense of responsibility even more to guarantee individual freedom . The New Deal and the social democratic welfare state of post-World War II America can be seen as an application of this reworked theory of liberty . But today this has degenerated as we see a reprise of the very narrow conception of liberty that Dewey and his contemporaries attacked as outmoded and out of step with the modern world . Neoliberalism has pushed this reductive , anti-social form of liberty against the social liberalism of the preceding decades . In many ways , the presence of a pathological understanding of freedom has its foundations in the very ways we conducted our pre-pandemic lives . Over the last four decades , neoliberal policies have chipped away at our public institutions , drained state budgets , marginalized public goods like education , and de-regulated our economy . Public life has shriveled as a consequence . Privatization has only reinforced our separateness from the public realm . Ideas about freedom have therefore been retuned to a condition not unlike a Hobbes ' state of nature where a war of all against all prevails .\nThe ideological project of neoliberalism has been to re-appropriate the concept of liberty and circumscribe it to the narrow realm of property , privacy and economic interest . What use are common goods when each lives according to one 's own efforts ? Liberty now is the absence of restraint , the elimination of any kind of direction over your life and your choices . The political right has made much of this simplistic philosophy : they convinced many citizens to sign on to a corporate agenda that has been able to undo the reforms made throughout much of the twentieth century in economic and social policy . The backlash against technical experts , unions , a robust social safety net , and other struts of an enlightened , socialized democracy is only gaining in momentum .\nBut there are other forces sustaining this culture of degenerate liberty . Alongside the undermining of the public institutions and spaces that interconnect us , neoliberalism has fostered a hyper consumerist culture . We are a nation of frantic consumers . Those individuals who , in highly publicized instances , stockpiled urgently needed medical supplies were trained by a culture that eagerly awaits Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales . Freedom is the freedom to violently consume . Deprived of the addiction to consumption or confronted by the idea that someone else might need something more urgently than you , it is easy to see why the closure of the economy might inspire rage . Entangled with the false conception of freedom is a false conception of human needs and human dignity .\nAnd so , when we consider again the protests against instructions to stay at home or consider the well-being of fellow citizens by social distancing or wearing masks , we should be aware that these behaviors are the product of the long cultivation of a particularly malign understanding of freedom – one forged to legitimate a public philosophy of anomic individualism that could justify neoliberalism and that is now quite literally making our republic sick . Freedom without responsibility no longer is freedom , it is a kind of licentiousness that is socially as well as personally damaging . Neoliberalism helped rot out the ethos of social responsibility that accompanied modern norms of freedom . The paranoia that accompanies relentless economic competitiveness and social inequality , extended working hours , a culture of senseless consumption and hedonism – all have contributed to the sense that one is in this alone for one 's own benefit . Indeed , it is no accident that the largest percentage of victims of this pandemic have been essential workers deprived of the right unionize , elderly residents of for-profit nursing homes with little regulation , and people of color whose communities have been marginalized by austerity budgets .\nIn many respects , what Bernie Sanders calls democratic socialism owes far more to the brand of liberalism advocated by Dewey and other philosophers of the Progressive and New Deal eras than to any socialist thinker . Indeed , Sanders has been right that this tradition of thought is more authentically American than the more recent short-sighted and acquisitively individualistic public philosophy nurtured by neoliberalism . In planning its strategy to combat the pandemic , the Biden campaign will also have to confront the pathological conception of freedom that has made the United States one of the worst victims of this pandemic . It will have to show that an orientation toward the common good is requisite for any vital sense of individual liberty . For now we are once again facing the prospect that an unmanaged form of license , masquerading as liberty , will force us to accept more coercive forms of political life .\nAnd as Americans reflect on what the COVID-19 crisis means for the future of American politics and culture , they may want to reflect anew on the ways our ideas about freedom have devolved and instead seek to retrieve once more a sense of social purpose to our degenerated culture of freedom . As Democrats suit up for their match with Donald Trump , this renewed sense of freedom should be the cornerstone for a new public philosophy : one that has democratic purpose , common interest and individual liberty together at its center . To lose this fight will give aid to the enemies of human progress and the culture of freedom that many fought and died for over the course of centuries .


“ The 360 ” shows you diverse perspectives on the day ’ s top stories and debates .\nDebates over masks and other face coverings have been at the center of discussion since the early days of the coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. For much of that time , the conversation focused largely on practical matters , like how effective masks are at stemming the spread of the virus and questions about shortages for health care workers .\nThe debate has shifted in recent weeks . There are no longer questions about whether masks prevent infection . Experts agree that even homemade ones help . The current conversation is more contentious . Those who refuse to wear masks have been accused of ignorance or selfishness while the mandates that they be worn outside or in shops have been painted as violations of civil liberties .\nThe discontent over masks has been strong enough to force some politicians to change their policies . Ohio Gov . Mike DeWine , who has been praised for his early and aggressive response to the virus , has lifted the state ’ s order requiring masks be worn inside stores , saying , “ People were not going to accept the government telling them what to do. ” The city of Stillwater , Okla. , rescinded its mask policy after employees at some stores faced threats of violence .\nThe disagreements over masks have even turned violent . In Michigan a security guard was killed after reportedly demanding a patron wear a mask .\nHow did the discussion of masks morph from a conversation about their medical merits to a clash over politics and liberty ?\nOne of the most obvious answers is the partisan divide over how best to respond to the pandemic . After facing criticism for his administration ’ s actions during the onset of the outbreak , President Trump has turned his focus to reopening the country and accused skeptics of his largely unpopular plan of playing politics . Declining to wear a mask could be , for many , a gesture of support for the president and his vision that it ’ s time to start returning to normal .\nTrump may have solidified this view by refusing to wear a mask at recent public appearances despite the administration ’ s recommendations for U.S. residents .\nWearing a mask can be a symbol of trust in leaders and scientists who set health policies . Refusing to wear one suggests a rejection of that authority . The mishmash of laws from state to state combined with confusing messaging from medical authorities like the World Health Organization may be contributing to doubts about the importance of face coverings .\nThe intensity of the disagreement may have more emotional roots , some psychiatrists say . In times of difficulty , humans are wired to look for someone to blame for the challenges they face . Mask wearers may see the bare-faced as responsible for exacerbating the health risks of the outbreak . Non-wearers might believe that overzealous restrictions are causing severe economic pain . For these groups , masks can be a symbol of a disagreement that goes much deeper than whether someone has a piece of cloth over their face .\n“ The wearing of masks is morphing into an unnecessary and unhealthy political test in which your face is the bumper sticker. ” — Jim Galloway , Atlanta Journal Constitution\n“ The way we do things is right . The way others do things is wrong . Usually the gulf between the two is a matter merely of frustration ; now it ’ s also a matter of fear . And for those of us who are told we ’ re not being careful enough when we ’ re convinced we ’ re being very careful indeed , it ’ s a matter of resentment tinged with guilt. ” — Molly Roberts , Washington Post\nMasks are symbolic of big government control to some people\n“ The decision not to wear a mask has , for some , become a rebellion against what they regard as an incursion on their personal liberties. ” — Rick Rojas , New York Times\nTrump ’ s strategy of reopening the country made masks a political statement\n“ Trump has apparently decided that the way out of the current crisis is to be bold about reopening as quickly as possible in as many places as possible . … So we can expect to see the president out and about around the country , projecting confidence in the nation ’ s health and resilience . And that is what he is modeling by not wearing a mask. ” — Ron Elving , NPR


Remember when the scariest kid in your neighborhood was the football jock who terrorized the high school with his minions in tow , and got bailed out by his rich parents when he went too far ? Or it was the gothic malcontent with the switchblade and the swagger . Either way , what made these high-status alphas so terrifying was that they came at you in numbers . They travelled in packs . This has been our narrative , in the stories we tell—from Henry Bowers in Stephen King ’ s It , to Biff Tannen in Back to the Future , to Billy Hargrove in Stranger Things , central-casting bullies attracted followers . They belonged .\nAs any grade eight schoolgirl who ’ s been bullied off Instagram can attest , this stereotype still holds . But when it comes to the most dangerous and sociopathic actors , the opposite is true . All three of the young mass shooters who terrorized the United States in recent nationally reported scenes of carnage—Connor Betts in Dayton , Ohio ; Patrick Crusius in El Paso , Texas ; and Santino William Legan in Gilroy , California—acted alone . The old image of the bully as locker-room alpha or goth leader now seems passé . Often , it is the kid who used to be the fictional protagonist , the social outcast , the member of the Losers Club from It , whose face now appears on our screens with a nightmarish empty stare .\nThese recent shooters fit a similar profile . They were outsiders , all seemingly socially awkward , who became emboldened through fringe online communities that act as mutual-support societies for violent malcontents . This phenomenon is fuelled by hate , guns , mental illness and ideological extremism . But there is another factor at play here , too . Before a youth makes the decision to murder , before the gun is stashed in his backpack , before his state of mental health is so deteriorated that he commits the unthinkable , what has happened to him ? It ’ s important to remember that these murders are also , in most cases , suicides .\nIn his 2008 article School Shooting as a Culturally Enforced Way of Expressing Suicidal Hostile Intentions , psychiatrist Antonio Preti summarized existing research on school shootings to the effect that “ suicidal intent was found in most cases for which there was detailed information on the assailants. ” The research also indicated that “ among students , homicide perpetrators were more than twice as likely as their victims to have been bullied by their peers , and also were described as loners and poorly integrated into school activities…In most of the ascertained cases , perpetrators prepared a well-organized plan , and often communicated details about it to acquaintances or friends , who failed to report threats because they did not consider them serious or were embarrassed or ignorant of where to go for help . The most antisocial peers sometimes approved the plan , sharing the same anger against the stated target of violence . ”\nPreti ’ s article predated the rise of some of the most notorious web sites—including 8chan , which was shut down this week after several mass shootings were linked to its users . But the nihilistic phenomenon these killers represent predates modern social-media culture . Indeed , it predates digital communication , and even broadcast media more generally .\nIn 1897 , French sociologist Émile Durkheim noted that suicides overall were increasing in society . But there were differences among the affected populations , he noticed . Men were more likely than women to commit suicide—though the chances decreased if the man was married and had children . Durkheim observed that social groups that were more religious exhibited lower suicide rates . ( Catholics were less likely to commit suicide than Protestants , for instance . ) Durkheim also noted that many people who killed themselves were young , and that the prevalence of such suicides was linked to their level of social integration : When a person felt little sense of connection or belonging , he could be led to question the value of his existence and end his life .\nDurkheim labelled this form of suicide as “ anomic ” ( others being “ egoistic , ” “ altruistic ” and “ fatalistic ” ) . Durkheim believed that these feelings of anomie assert themselves with special force at moments when society is undergoing social , political or economic upheaval—especially if such upheavals result in immediate and severe changes to everyday life .\nDurkheim came from a long line of devout Jews . His father , grandfather and great grandfather had all been rabbis . And so even though he chose to pursue an academic career , his experiences taught him to respect the mental and psychological support that religious communities supplied to their members , as well as the role that ritual plays in the regulation of social behavior . In the absence of such regulation , he believed , individuals and even whole societies were at risk of falling into a state of anomie , whereby common values and meanings fall by the wayside . The resulting void doesn ’ t provide people with a sense of freedom , but rather rootlessness and despair .\nDurkheim ’ s thesis has largely stood the test of time , though other scholars have reformulated it for modern audiences . In his 1955 book The Sane Society , for instance , Erich Fromm wrote that , “ in the nineteenth century , the problem was that God is dead . In the twentieth century , the problem is that man is dead. ” He described the twentieth century as a period of “ schizoid-self alienation , ” and worried that men would destroy “ their world and themselves because they can not stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life . ”\nIn her 2004 book Rampage : The Social Roots of School Shootings , Katherine Newman described findings gleaned from over 100 interviews in Arkansas and Kentucky . The male adolescent shooters at the center of her study , she concluded , “ shared a belief that demonstrating strength by planned attacks on their respective institutions with ( too ) easily available guns would somehow mitigate their unbearable feelings of inadequacy as males and bring longed-for respect from peers. ” Ten years later , in a 2014 article titled The Socioemotional Foundations of Suicide : A Microsociological View of Durkheim ’ s Suicide , sociologists Seth Abrutyn and Anna Mueller set out to update Durkheim ’ s theory about how social integration and moral regulation affect suicidality . “ The greater degree to which individuals feel they have failed to meet expectations and others fail to ‘ reintegrate ’ them , the greater the feelings of shame and , therefore , anomie , ” they concluded . “ The risk of suicidal thoughts , attempts , and completions , in addition to violent aggression toward specific or random others , is a positive function of the intensity , persistence , and pervasiveness of identity , role , or status-based shame and anomie . ”\nWriting in the 1890s , Durkheim was highly conscious of all the ways that industrial capitalism corroded traditional forms of social regulation in society , often at the expense of religious—and even governmental—authorities . ( “ Depuis un siècle , en effet , le progrès économique a principalement consisté à affranchir les relations industrielles de toute réglementation . Jusqu ’ à des temps récents , tout un système de pouvoirs moraux avait pour fonction de les discipliner…En effet , la religion a perdu la plus grande partie de son Empire . Le pouvoir gouvernemental , au lieu d ’ être le régulateur de la vie économique , en est devenu l ’ instrument et le serviteur. ” ) But if he were to visit us in 2019 , Durkheim would be surprised at the extent to which once-dominant ideas with no connection to economics have been marginalized as regressive and hateful—such as nationalism , patriotism and even masculinity .\nThis is one reason why so many people now feel unmoored . As Canadian science fiction writer Donald Kingsbury eloquently put it in his novel Courtship Rite , “ Tradition is a set of solutions for which we have forgotten the problems . Throw away the solution and you get the problem back. ” Faith in god , country and manhood might be seen as regressive by modern lights . But insofar as they were holding back male anomie , we perhaps neglected to consider what damage would be done if we discredited those ideas before finding replacements .\nIn the history of our species , there has never been ( to the knowledge of modern scholars ) a human society that did not express belief in some sort of supernatural force—which suggests that we are programmed by a need to believe in something bigger than ourselves . Sociologist Max Weber warned in 1919 that “ science deals with facts . It can ’ t tell us what to do or what ’ s important. ” This is to say that while the scientific revolution did a good job of helping us explain and harness the natural world , it did nothing to fill the god-shaped hole that Blaise Pascal identified in the 17th-century : “ What else does this craving , and this helplessness , proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness , of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace ? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him , seeking in things that are not there the help he can not find in those that are , though none can help , since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object ; in other words by God himself . ”\nIf we are to resign ourselves to the fact that “ God himself ” isn ’ t going to intercede any time soon , then we are left with the ordinary tools of policy , such as Robert Putnam outlined in his famous 2000 book , Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of the American Community , in which he pointed to the value of “ the connections among individuals ’ social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. ” These connections could be strengthened , Putnam argued , through improved civics education , more extra-curricular activities for youth , smaller schools , family-oriented workplaces , a more enlightened approach to urbanism , technology that reinforces rather than replaces face-to-face interaction , as well as a decentralization of political power . These recommendations were written 19 years ago , before Facebook , Twitter or 4chan existed . It would be interesting to know how he would revise his recommendations now that we have a better appreciation for the massive effects of digital culture on our social dynamics .\nIn a 2017 article I wrote , titled Towards a Theory of Virtual Sentiments , I argued that real-time empathy generation often requires some degree of eye contact—which is hard to generate through online interaction . Moreover , it is shockingly easy to get worked up into a rage when you are interacting with an online avatar of a person you have never met . Simply put , the more we physically see each other , the less likely we are to be awful to each other . As Louis CK said in an interview about youth and technology , “ They don ’ t look at people when they talk to them and they don ’ t build empathy . You know , kids are mean , and it ’ s cause they ’ re trying it out . They look at a kid and they go , ‘ You ’ re fat , ’ and then they see the kid ’ s face scrunch up and they go , ‘ Oh , that doesn ’ t feel good to make a person do that. ’ But when they write ‘ You ’ re fat ’ [ online ] then they just go , ‘ Mmm , that was fun , I like that. ’ ” Even putting aside the extreme cases of forums that cater to homicidal shooters , I remain unconvinced that any community that exists primarily in online form can be a force for long-term good . Perhaps more time offline is a good start for anyone seeking to enhance “ the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness . ”\nDo we need a new nationalism ? A new religion ? What common human project can we collectively embrace that gives a sense of mission to everyone , regardless of skin color , religion , economic class or ideology ? It would be presumptuous for me to suggest I have the answers . All I know is that men who see human life as meaningless are symptoms of a larger sense of anomie that , in less dramatic and destructive form , increasingly grips us all .\nTerry Newman is currently an MA student in the Sociology Department at Concordia University in Montreal . Her SSHRC-funded research is on the candidate controversies that took place during the 2015 Canadian federal election . She is also a Teaching Assistant in Concordia ’ s Engineering Department . She tweets from @ tlnewmanmtl . She is the author of the ███ article Through the Looking Glass at Concordia University .


Below are some further comments and our speculations on how the tribes will evolve in Culture War 2.0 .\nWhile this tribe engages in full-out war with other tribes , they continue to make gains in legacy media , corporate HR and PR departments , and government institutions . With increased embeddedness of SJA values in institutions and corporations , expect a right-wing countervailing response . Also watch for a fight to define leftism against class-first analysis .\nThis tribe has made a large impact on the cultural landscape , but has not yet made an impact on government policy . Watch for potential conflicts with masculinist black nationalists and the “ leaving the plantation ” narrative of Candace Owens . Also , keep a look-out for BLM to distance themselves from white allies capitalizing on wokeness .\nPerhaps the fastest growing tribe in recent times , it has moved quickly to redefine the social consensus . Watch for further revelations concerning men in power , followed by more conservative and reactionary backlash .\nThe feminists left behind by trans-inclusive feminists are fighting an uphill battle inside the left . Watch for future mixing with non-left tribes , and more offline culture war .\nNeo-Marxists , while still alive and well in a critical capacity on college campuses , have lost significance since the fall of the Soviet Union . Communism is seen across the political spectrum as discredited . However , given the rising popularity of Democratic Socialists , the memes that Marx birthed could see a revival . If Neo-Marxists can offer a compelling narrative and escape the capitulation and nihilism of Accelerationist thought , they might be able to piggy-back on the DSA ’ s popularity . Watch for Douglas Lain ’ s Zero Books imprint to capitalize on this opportunity .\nEven without identifiable chieftains , Antifa has played an important part in the culture war and continues to benefit from people ’ s fear of Trump and dissatisfaction with mainstream responses . Watch for the normalization of a violent offline culture war .\nThe tribe that coalesced around radical leftism , hope , and physical presence has been shattered . Dormant , it lives on in the 99 % meme and in the pages of Adbusters .\nThe drama of the Bernie campaign and dissatisfaction with the lack of leftism in the Democratic Party has led to a surge in a radical wing of the American left . The ironic fringe still rests at the top of the podcasts , and the push for mainstreaming socialism has been growing ever since Trump ’ s election . Watch for further infighting with Social Justice Activists .\nIn reaction to the polarization and catastrophizing they see on both the left and right , this nascent tribe has coalesced around the idea that the world is in fact improving , and whatever challenges society faces can be solved through the institutions and values we currently hold . Watch for an increased presence as neoliberalism converts libertarians and shifts to be embraced as a contrarian ideology .\nThe zeitgeist of our times gives the palpable sense that the establishment left and right are dramatically on the decline , especially amongst millennials and Generation Z . Those in power within the establishment are experiencing increased pressure from rapidly rising elements within their parties . Democratic and liberal parties worldwide are contending with socialist and far-left elements . Conservative parties have seen populists and illiberal democrats take over . And everyone , everywhere , has been blindsided by the rise of white identitarian and nationalist elements . Watch for these tribes to make a last grasp at power during the 2020 elections .\nThe atheist tribes are indirect participants in the culture war . Their shared objective is to attack the religious truth-claims and to plant doubt in the epistemic methodology of believers . The New Atheists lost the relevance they had during the Bush Era when the “ Four Horsemen ” had great popularity , but their impact has been felt in the noosphere . They contributed to the religious right ’ s defeat in Culture War 1.0 by weakening it on philosophical grounds . The Street Epistemologists are the New Atheists ’ potential successor in Culture War 2.0 .\nIncubated on Overcoming Bias and LessWrong , this is an observer tribe in the culture war . Though similar to the New Atheists in that they prize rationality , they do not define themselves in opposition to religion . Thanks to the strength of Eliezer Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander ’ s writing , and the beliefs and epistemic virtues of the diaspora , they command increasing respect in the culture war . Watch for a popularity boost to Effective Altruism , a struggle with the downsides of increased attention , and possible pressure from the SJAs for the Rationalists to commit to progressive values .\nThis is another observer tribe , and possibly the most interesting one . If the rationalist motto is “ the map is not the territory , but it is important to create the most accurate map possible , ” then the post-rationalist motto is “ the canvas is not the territory , but it is important to create the most interesting canvas possible. ” This observer tribe has the potential to generate innovative solutions to the seemingly intractable problem of the differend .\nKen Wilber , who lost some momentum in his “ Wyatt Earp ” incident , is steadily gaining a strong following amongst cultural influencers . Like the Rationalists and Post-Rationalists , Integralists are an observer tribe . Unlike them , they have a teleological narrative that instills existential hope . This will be a tribe to watch if it moves away from its observer capacity and becomes more active in the war .\nJordan Peterson is the common denominator of these two tribes . One of the most important figures in Culture War 2.0 , his central message emphasizes free speech and the importance of truth-speaking . His following of mostly young men , which we dub the Sorters , are attracted to Peterson ’ s style and message of personal responsibility . The “ Intellectual Dark Web , ” coined by Eric Weinstein , consists of thinkers who have experienced what they view as thought-policing by politically correct elements of the left . With the ever-increasing popularity of Peterson ’ s brand and related platforms such as Quillette , the Rubin Report , and the Joe Rogan Experience , watch for both of these tribes to gain members and make a strong push for a return to a classically liberal center in our culture .\nWith a religious right increasingly subservient to Trump , it is becoming incumbent for Christians who put faith first to organize collectively . This memetic tribe is aware of its own mortality and is putting survival before the culture war . Watch for a siphoning of disillusioned Christians and rightists .\nThe religious right is quickly transitioning into a nationalist right . The culture war goals of the Moral Majority have largely been set aside in favor of punishing the left via Trump . Unless there is a public evangelist revival , watch for this tribe to dissolve into Trumpists and Benedictines over the next few years .\nSince its decline following the 2013 government shutdown , this tribe has largely been subsumed by the Trumpists . Watch for a continued decline in libertarian activism as believers drift towards Trump or neoliberalism .\nThis new tribe makes up for a lack of experience and policy through power and “ high energy. ” They are engaged in a fight for control over the mainstream perception of conservatism with a blindsided establishment right . Watch for a push for votes from racial minorities and a scramble to stay in line with Trump ’ s thought .\nThese are the conspiracy theory tribes of the culture war . Alex Jones and Infowars represent “ established ” conspiracies such as the New World Order and Illuminati . With his manic energy , Jones has successfully turned conspiracy into a profitable business . QAnon is a grassroots emergence of conspiracy theories originating on /pol/ . Given the intense passion their reality tunnel engenders , we speculate that QAnon will grow amongst Trumpists and will be censored on social media platforms , which will only further fuel its growth .\nThese three tribes are concerned with issues surrounding white people and are often lumped together by the mainstream media , but they are actively fighting amongst themselves ( “ punching right ” ) in order to create distance and avoid conflation . The Alt-Lite would be quick to point out that they are less defined by white identity and more by western chauvinism , an unapologetic view that western culture is the best . Watch for massive fluctuations and changes in the composition of all three , and a continued fight amongst themselves to gain adherents .\nThis semi-dormant tribe has partly been subsumed into the Alt-Right . Lack of public direction from its key figures has led to a decline in influence . Watch for Nick Land ’ s return to the blogosphere and keep an eye on Social Matter and the Hestia Society for a potential revival .\nLike the dissident right tribes , these masculine tribes are usually lumped together . Like the far-right tribes , these masculinist tribes also signal to create distance from each other . The Manosphere , the largest of the three tribes , reached its peak around Gamergate and has lost momentum due to its lack of a non-hedonistic strategy , and due to men ’ s attention being divided by the competing message of Jordan Peterson . See a continued declined with these three groups , unless new voices emerge .\nThese self-described involuntary celibates could be placed in the masculinist cluster if not for their view of themselves as having been “ black-pilled ” instead of “ red-pilled. ” They agree with most of the descriptive views of the masculinist tribes , but see their situation as radically hopeless and unfair . The more extreme adherents have a belief space that shares more with terrorist groups like ISIS than any of the memetic tribes listed above . Copycat attacks mimicking Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian might grow in number unless a memeplex emerges that can inspire and provide meaning to sexually unsuccessful males in society .\nWe conclude this white paper by offering speculative proposals that are not meant to treat the culture war as a solvable problem , but as an opportunity for personal and collective growth .\nWe view the noosphere as an emergent phenomenon , a consequence of globalization and digitalization . When Pierre Teilhard de Chardin introduced the term , he adopted a teleological perspective and saw the collective consciousness of humanity developing towards an “ Omega Point. ” While we are agnostic about whether there is an endpoint , we do think that looking at the noosphere as being in the process of evolution can help with regards to making speculative proposals . In this section we shift our focus from seeing memetic tribes as individual entities to viewing them as fragments of the larger noosphere .\nBruce Tuckman , a psychology researcher in group dynamics , established his famous “ stages of group development ” model in 1965 . He believed that there were four necessary stages that newly formed groups need to progress through in order to tackle their shared challenges . The first stage is forming , when a team first comes together and individuals , mainly focused on themselves , operate with a degree of politeness . The second stage is storming , when comfort within the group allows for conflicting opinions to be voiced . Team members may wrestle for control of the group ’ s values and goals . The third stage is norming , when “ resolved disagreements and personality clashes result in greater intimacy , and a spirit of cooperation emerges. ” The fourth stage is performing , where , with “ group norms and roles established , group members focus on achieving common goals , often reaching an unexpectedly high level of success . ”\nNot all groups are successful . Some abort during the storming phase — and if we apply this model to the noosphere , we see that all the memetic tribes are in the midst of it . The emergent collective consciousness of the internet began as the relatively innocent forming stage of Web 1.0 . Now that we are in the storming phase , we are plagued by mobs , trolls , and doxxing .\nIf we are to survive as a species , we must address our collective challenges and existential risks — from rogue A.I . to environmental disaster . To do so , we ’ re going to have to build the bridge from storming to norming . This norming phase may not involve feel-good utopianism , but it must involve deep negotiations and compromises between tribes , or alternatively , a peaceful geopolitical instantiation of the growing memetic divides .\nThese eight speculative proposals are meant as a launching pad for discussion . They are not proposals for government or corporate policy . Rather , they are ideas for readers to explore , small but meaningful steps to push against the overwhelming whirlwind of the culture war . It is our hope that interested minds and entrepreneurial spirits will take these proposals and advance them further .\nThe Hippocratic Oath was an oath that physicians were required to take before they began practicing medicine . Its modern iteration is a rite of passage for graduates of some medical schools . While today the oath is not a binding contract , there is a degree of ritualistic magic in formally committing to ideals . Could there be a Culture War equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath ? One that chieftains of the memetic tribes could affirm ? It would prove beneficial if journalists , authors , bloggers , and professors alike took this oath , but any social media user could take the oath , by pledging their name and accepting some sort of e-badge . Promises can be broken , but breaking public promises can generate swift social feedback .\nWhat would this Oath consist of ? At the bare minimum : a commitment to good faith dialogue , the principle of charity , and intellectual humility . The last virtue is critical . A caveat of “ I could be wrong ” underlying strongly held beliefs helps even the most difficult conversations , a shared commitment to that caveat helps even more . If enough culture warriors take such an Oath , it could pave the way for a Geneva Convention of the Culture War .\nIt is increasingly hard for media outlets to approximate “ performative neutrality , ” thanks to the perverse incentives of outrage porn and the need to appease dwindling subscribers for survival . Is there a way to satisfy the collective hunger for “ unbiased news ” ? While we try to figure that out , cynicism spreads , as rightists increasingly find traditional media ’ s claims of neutrality laughable . Is there an alternative ?\nWe could all start by putting our skin in the game , by being honest about our biases and tribal affiliations . We could abandon the pretense to neutrality and more honestly engage with each other , knowing where we stand . Arguments could go to our philosophical foundations more quickly , instead of expending themselves on object-level disagreement .\nWe call this “ clean bias , ” an admission of an epistemic framework and value structure . It is in contrast to “ dirty bias , ” unspoken and denied framework and values while purporting universality . Thanks to the reality crisis , we are shedding our faith in universally imposed and agreed-upon truths . Clean bias is a necessary part of a new peace in our fractured reality . A first step could be for memetic creators , from journalists to bloggers , to commit to including their foundational presumptions in their bios .\nDebate is broken . Nobody actually likes “ gotcha interviews ” or debates plagued with strawmanning , question-begging , bad faith , and side-stepping . Debate needs to be rebuilt . We suggest that debate currently tries to inhabit two contradictory roles . On the one hand , it is a source of entertainment through combat ; On the other , it is an avenue for improved understanding and wisdom . We propose that these two roles should be formally separated into distinct types of debates : Sport Debates and Sensemaking Debates .\nIn Sport Debates , participants debate for combat and entertainment . This would gamify the desire to engage in verbal combat for its own sake , with truth as a potential byproduct . They could be viewed as the UFC of the mind . While it may seem cynical to sponsor an avenue for the fiery and often toxic form debates can take , we think that diverting those urges away from sensemaking desires is a good harm-reduction strategy .\nIn Sensemaking Debates , participants debate for understanding and exploration . This would allow the purported values of debate to actually flourish . This can also include philosophical sandboxing , the adoption of ideologies as a method actor . Spaces could be made where participants take on ideological roles so as to better understand them , and to develop the skill to take them off .\nDavid Brin ’ s idea of “ Disputation Arenas ” and William MacAskill ’ s “ Anti-Debates ” can map over to the two types of debates , with Bryan Caplan ’ s “ Ideological Turing Test ” as another potential modality that falls somewhere between both types . Peter , the co-author of this white paper , has been experimenting with both of these debate modalities inside his Intellectual Explorers Club . He welcomes suggestions and participants .\nDue to technological innovation , industries are being disrupted the world-over , from the sharing economy to AI developments . We suggest that it is time for philosophy to endure similar disruptions . In Disabling Professions , Ivan Illich argues that professionalization can have a damaging effect on society , as expert culture induces knowledge-distance , blindness , and reliance on experts by non-experts . While Illich ’ s focus was the medical establishment , this also applies to philosophy , which has been inaccessible to most non-professionals for decades . This has in turn led to a sense of philosophy ’ s irrelevance amongst non-academics .\nBut as practical philosopher Andrew Taggart points out , philosophy is much more than an academic discipline , it is as a way of life : “ Philosophy is not theoretical discourse but a way of being . Philosophical discourse , accordingly , appears only when necessary and is always put in the service of leading a certain kind of life. ” Indeed , we are seeing the beginnings of a reclaiming of philosophy as a way of life in the new popularity of the longform podcast and of philosophies of virtue , such as Stoicism .\nOur hope is that with these and other disruptions to the philosophical status quo , people will gain the tools to think critically and avoid being drawn into convenient and prepackaged worldviews . Philosophy could be a guard against the pressure to join an existing memetic tribe . R.J. Hollingdale ’ s aphorism may come to fruition : “ If we thought more for ourselves we would have very many more bad books and very many more good ones . ”\nA new role might be required in the Culture War , that of the Memetic Mediator . This mediator would be a pan-tribalist participant who has the ability to communicate across tribes in a way that seems fair and reasonable to each tribe . They would have the mental agility , empathy , and wisdom needed to shift between a multitude of perspectives .\nMemetic mediators could be called in for memetic battles where both participants prefer peace to continued civil decay , but can not come to an accord without facilitation . These mediators would require a multitude of tools at their disposal . They would need to be fluent in multiple tribal paradigms and give the impression of fairness . And because each tribe has their own method and claims to truth , Memetic Mediators would have to be skilled at finding any common ground and building from it .\nAs we do not have an existing example to point to , we can only speculate that the role will emerge out of necessity in the coming war . They could even emerge as consultants for social media companies .\nVenkatesh Rao has introduced the term “ grey pilling , ” which he views as the third pill in the blue-red pill dichotomy . Blue pills are unquestioned consensus realities we are socialized into . A red pill , as Venkatesh puts it , is :\na dose of information that awakens you to the existence of a world beyond the one you are unconsciously immersed in , like a fish being taken out of water . Red-pill moments sensitize you to the previously invisible boundaries and structural lies of the world you knew , and make you alive to astounding possibilities beyond it .\nA grey pill , according to Venkatesh , is the process of “ relearning the value of questioning and doubt after you ’ ve been seduced by answers and certainties ; it ’ s leaving comforting ‘ secret ’ societies for continued intellectual growth. ” Grey pills can engender an existential crisis , but at the right dose they can provide a confident unknowing and a sexy uncertainty , what Stephen Fry calls “ passionate and positive doubt. ” In a world of tyrannical certainty , grey pilling may be an ethical act .\nIn 1964 , Ken Kesey , smitten with the experience that LSD provided him , drove around the country with his Merry Band of Pranksters and offered “ acid tests ” to anyone they could find with the intent to open minds and transform the consciousness of society . Some may argue that they were successful in doing so , as his adventures chronicled in Tom Wolfe ’ s book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test are credited with giving birth to the hippie movement . What if we grey-pilled the way Kesey acid-tested ?\nThis would be the return of Socrates , the original gadfly , who grey-pilled anyone who dared to converse with him . The method of the Street Epistemologists are instructive and may be repurposed for this proposal . Their conversational method of innocently starting dialog is well-structured , but instead of atheists inquiring into the epistemic methodology of their “ irrational ” interlocutors , performative agnostics could inquire with the intention to get mutually , philosophically lost . This may be our most dangerous , and most fun , speculation .\nManagement theorist Robert Katz made a distinction between three critical skills for professional success : technical skills , conceptual skills , and human skills . Technical skills are practical skill-sets that can be mastered . Conceptual skills are effective ways of thinking about complex problems . And human skills can be understood as the ability to connect with what is “ human ” about another person . While the “ marketing mentality ” invokes the need for social skills , which are instrumental towards salesmanship or leadership persuasion , “ human skills ” invokes the framework of authentic relationships with other humans . It has the potential to lend itself to a non-instrumental view of relationships . In Buberian terms , this is a movement from an I-It way of relating to one of I-Thou .\nThe Authentic Relating and Circling Movement aims to cultivate WE Spaces , which are intersubjective I-Thou spaces where collective consciousness can emerge . For individuals concerned by their own culpability in the Culture War , these spaces give an opportunity to develop Human Skills . We speculate that if one becomes skilled at relating to another for its own sake , across tribal affiliation , it may allow people to bypass tribalistic affinities and a Protean Tribalism to emerge . One ’ s tribe would be fluid and context-based , in contrast to the increasingly rigid identities we currently find comfort in .\nThe Culture War is a vicious cycle — those who suffer from it feel they have to perpetuate it . Initiating conversations about alternatives can be the start of a positive feedback loop . Individuals looking to improve the atmosphere in their communities could initiate workshops to that end .\nA promising example to this end is the OpenMind platform . As per its website , “ OpenMind is a psychology-based educational platform designed to depolarize campuses , companies , organizations , and communities . OpenMind helps people foster intellectual humility and mutual understanding , while equipping them with the essential cognitive skills to engage constructively across differences. ” A combination of online program and workshop , OpenMind is one avenue to develop viewpoint diversity and diffuse political tensions in relationships . Any organized , good faith approach to repairing fraying communities is likely to have a positive effect .