Populism, Political Violence, and the Collapse of Civil Discourse in America
For centuries, the United States of America has been hailed as a paragon of pluralism and free speech.
Unfortunately, earnest political discourse has become largely impossible in America, and politically motivated violence has steadily subsumed the U.S., due to the fact that Americas media have relentlessly attempted to misconstrue populism as the epitome of extremist ideologies and an imminent, evil, threat to all free people and democratic societies.
In fact, the American media must abandon its dishonest campaign to misrepresent populism as a looming threat to democracy, in order to restore earnest political discourse and communication and prevent politically motivated violence from imploding the American state.
Since the advent of Trumps first presidency, the American media has consistently deployed populism as a catch-all term for neo-Nazis, racists, and all species of bigot, in an attempt to delegitimize President Trump and discredit the American peoples stunning rejection of the political status quo and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Furthermore, post-2016, populism has been transformed into a euphemism for tyrannical or authoritarian regimes, as well as fascism, and any politics that are anti-democratic or violate human rights.
In contrast, throughout the modern era, left-wing ideology has been emphatically hailed as the driver of all socio-political progress since the Enlightenment and invariably associated with the democratic ideal, as well as a constant desire to protect and cultivate the fundamental human rights. In fact, over the past decade, left-wing politicians such as Canadas former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have consistently been lauded as champions of liberty and human rights, in spite of any fascist, anti-democratic, politics and explicit human rights violations.
As a result, American media have engineered a political spectrum wherein a person or political actor becomes increasingly evil and antithetical to democracy as their political beliefs and personal ideology become progressively populist; and, conversely, a person becomes increasingly good and virtuous inasmuch as their personal beliefs and political ideology become left-wing and liberal.
In truth, for over a decade, the American people have been discouraged from earnest political discourse and dialogue, due to the fact that American society has been subsumed within a political ecosystem wherein populism is not merely a competing ethos, but rather an enemy that must be eradicated and destroyed, along with its adherents, due to the fact that it is dangerous to the wellbeing of any democracy and person.
Therefore, politically motivated violence and terrorism have become commonplace in America.
For example, under the pretense that they are protecting Americas democracy and championing the liberal ideal, left-wing extremists and organizations such as ANTIFA have frequently attacked pro-Trump rallies and Trump supporters, as well as countless so-called populist rallies, since the outset of Trumps first presidency in 2016. Furthermore, Tesla factories, dealerships, and vehicles across the United States are currently being attacked and destroyed by left-wing extremists, in an overt attempt to terrorize the Trump administration and President Trumps senior adviser, Elon Musk, as well as Tesla owners and Trump supporters in the U.S.
Moreover, the attacks against Tesla, Musk, and the Trump administration have come mere weeks after a would-be assassin sought to infiltrate the White House and murder President Trump. In fact, Trumps 2024 presidential campaign was punctuated with various assassination attempts by deranged leftists intent on "saving America." For instance, on Sept. 15, 2024, Ryan Routh attempted to murder Donald Trump at the Trump International Golf Club in Florida. And on July 13, 2024, 20-year-old Thomas Crooks nearly assassinated Trump and severely wounded three innocent supporters at a rally in Pennsylvania, ultimately killing one.
Since the advent of the American nation in 1776, the U.S. has existed as a paragon of personal liberty and free political discourse.
Unfortunately, since 2016, earnest political discourse has become impossible in America and politically motivated violence has inundated the country, as the left has attempted to misconstrue populism as the epitome of all extremist ideologies and a threat to free people and democratic societies.
It is clear that if the American media does not abandon its dishonest and dangerous efforts to misrepresent populism as an ever-looming threat, then compassionate political discourse and communication will retreat in America and politically motivated violence will replace civil dialogue, imploding the American state into open anarchy.
William Barclay is a political theorist and private consultant. His work has been published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Palgrave-Macmillan, The Hill Times, and the Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, among others. Follow him on Twitter/X @WillBarclayBBC.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the business world has to like (and not) in Senate version of Trump's 'big beautiful bill'
The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" released Monday, but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee released its 549-page blueprint this week that contains significant changes from what the House passed in May, especially on taxes, Medicare funding and clean energy. The changes are still being digested by the business community but one proposal is already being embraced: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent for things like interest payments and new capital investments. One idea that may not be quite so popular is the survival of an idea for a so-called "revenge tax" that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from changes made by the Senate. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime in the Senate bill. Health care providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions to dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost saving measure with a slashing of the annual deduction for individual State and Local Taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is even described in the official summary of the bill as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling as he reiterated that he remains a no. This latest release comes only about two weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. The Senate is aiming to pass the bill by next weekend, Ed Mills of Raymond James pointed out in a note, "however, we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under intense debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners are a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like the depreciation of property, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for Opportunity Zones, which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime but in a more limited form. Employee will have annual deductions of up to $25,000 for tips and overtime — in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. Also present in the Senate blueprint is a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, the executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight (stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House) but are expected to remain a point of contention and also potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to have cut against the business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill but in a slightly diminished form: this so-called "revenge tax." That is an idea that would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case things like the digital services taxes the often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added "we still view late July as the real deadline." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
FIFA has taken us for fools over its promise to fight racism
Maybe ultimately, we're the fools. Because did we expect anything else from FIFA? Did we really believe world football's governing body was going to make use of the colossal platform available to it? Did we actually think it was going to do even the bare minimum? The news that FIFA has decided not to display any anti-racism or anti-discrimination messaging during games at the ongoing Club World Cup in the United States came with a grim inevitability. Despite rustling up some promotional materials for its 'no racism' and 'no discrimination' initiatives, none have been used so far in the first week of the tournament. There has been nothing in the stadiums, on social media, on captains' armbands. Anywhere at all, in fact. Advertisement When asked by The Athletic, FIFA did not comment on whether there was a link between this decision and the increasingly close relationship between its president Gianni Infantino and the competition's host nation's President Donald Trump, but as soon as it became clear that Infantino was prioritising nurturing that bond over, say, actually running FIFA, it probably should have been obvious that this was going to happen. Trump's attempts to eradicate anything that faintly smells of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) — three words which he has, astonishingly, managed to redefine as bad things — already appear to have spilt over into sport. February's Super Bowl was the first in four years not to have 'End racism' messaging in the stadium. In March, an article on the U.S. Department of Defense's website celebrating Jackie Robinson, the former soldier who became the first man to break the colour barrier in Major League Baseball (MLB), was removed amid a purge of government web content relating to DEI. The article on Robinson was eventually restored, but the direction of travel was clear. So, when it came to FIFA and launching its new, greatly expanded Club World Cup with this first edition in the States, this was probably a case of when, rather than if. From a strictly pragmatic, realpolitik point of view, you could argue that it's sensible for Infantino to cosy up to the president of the country hosting your next two global events, with much of the national-team World Cup next year being played in the U.S. too. But if that means abandoning any moral principles you have, or at least pretend to have, is it worth it? Instead, FIFA's big message for this tournament is its 'Football Unites the World' slogan, which is displayed on captains' armbands, but not in many other places. Advertisement Football unites the world. Sure. But behind what? What is the force for good here? If you're saying that football has a broader social impact beyond just the game, then you have to give us something tangible to prove the point. Otherwise, it's just meaningless. Still, perhaps that's the point. At various intervals, FIFA and Infantino have spoken solemnly about their commitment to anti-racism. In January 2024, he encouraged the idea that teams should forfeit matches in the event of racist incidents. FIFA's 2022 World Cup sustainability report included a promise to carry out 'diversity and anti-discrimination awareness-raising initiatives.' Good idea. If nothing else, football should be used to raise awareness. It's the most popular sport in the world, arguably the biggest cultural force on the planet. When, though, if not at the Club World Cup, the tournament FIFA has been telling us for years is going to be the greatest show on earth? Would this not have been a pretty good opportunity to plaster everything with strong messaging, to make sure that if any viewers took anything from watching these games in America, it was that FIFA was committed to anti-discrimination? It's a particularly Eurocentric point of view to label this tournament a waste of time, another brick placed on top of the Jenga tower that is the international football schedule. But it has much more value and holds much more interest to fans and clubs from other parts of the world. It is far from insignificant. So at the very least, it could have been used as a platform, a method of influencing and drawing attention to the things that FIFA say it is committed to. Football's messaging when it comes to discrimination messaging is generally dishwater-weak as it is. UEFA, the game's European governing body, used to display a video before games in its competitions where famous football figures would stare into the camera and intone, in their native language, 'No to racism'. A noble sentiment, although it's stretching credibility to think that a racist would see, say, Pavel Nedved telling them that this sort of thing is not on, and thus change their ways. Advertisement But at least it was something. FIFA isn't even doing that. Comparisons will be made to the row over the 'One Love' armbands a few teams suggested they were going to wear during matches at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, an idea that FIFA nixed pretty quickly, and indeed pre-emptively banned from the Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand the following year. That was an external initiative, though: from a corporate perspective, it was consistent with its stance that only FIFA-approved messaging could be used. This is different. This is FIFA actively jettisoning something it has previously declared to be a precious part of football's social fabric, apparently because it is politically inconvenient. It all begs the question: if you can't even rely on FIFA to publicise what it claims to stand for, then what's the point? FIFA didn't comment on its plans for the actual World Cup next summer, to be hosted in the United States, Canada and Mexico, but it doesn't bode well. What will the slogan be for that? 'Can everyone just be nice?' 'Please don't be mean to each other'? Could this be watered-down even further, to homeopathic levels? If anyone can, FIFA can. It shouldn't be that hard to present some sort of worthwhile message, even if these are often frustratingly milquetoast. Major League Soccer and MLB recently carried out Pride initiatives, as did the Premier League. Teams in England were still taking the knee before games at the end of the most recent domestic season. But even that seems beyond FIFA. Again, perhaps this is our fault. Expect nothing, and you won't be disappointed. Expect the most basic expression of humanity, and you will. This is FIFA, after all.


Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
U.S. Tanker Aircraft Head to Middle East as Threat of Iran War Rises
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Air Force aerial refueling aircraft are heading for the Middle East amid an escalating war between Israel and Iran and the possibility that U.S. forces could also become involved, according to flight data tracking sources. Newsweek has reached out to the Pentagon for comment. Why It Matters The U.S. is redeploying military forces as the conflict between Israel and Iran stretched over the week, raising tensions between Washington and Tehran. The American repositioning could be a sign of an increased possibility that it gets involved in an attack on Iran although Washington has so far said that it is not joining Israel in striking Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump had previously not ruled out military action if Iran did not agree to curbs on its nuclear program. Iran has also blamed the United States for Israel's attacks though has not repeated earlier threats of attacking U.S. bases in the region. The USAF Thunderbirds mid-air refueling during the Atlantic City, NJ Air Show on August 24, 2022 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The USAF Thunderbirds mid-air refueling during the Atlantic City, NJ Air Show on August 24, 2022 in Atlantic City, New To Know KC-135R Stratotankers and KC-46A Pegasus tankers, commonly used during transatlantic deployments and support for combat aircraft appeared to be heading to the Middle East through Europe, data from Flightradar 24 showed. More than two dozen U.S. Air Force KC-135R and KC-46A tankers took off from bases across the U.S. and headed east over the Atlantic, The War Zone reported earlier. The U.S. Navy's aircraft carrier USS Nimitz has also appeared to be heading toward the Middle East from Asia. "Over the weekend, I directed the deployment of additional capabilities to the United States Central Command Area of Responsibility," Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on X on Monday. — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (@SecDef) June 16, 2025 Messaging from Trump has been fluctuating, with earlier remarks expressing hope for a "real end" to the conflict—and before that describing a nuclear deal with Tehran as achievable—to telling reporters aboard Air Force One he was not in "too much in the mood to negotiate" with Iran. Following Israeli strikes on Iranian territory last week, Iran retaliated with missile attacks targeting Israeli cities, resulting in civilian casualties on both sides. Tehran has held Washington responsible for Israel's offensive, after previously warning of a regional response that could include U.S. targets. Britain is deploying additional RAF Typhoon jets and refueling aircraft to the Middle East for "contingency support," Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced, according to the BBC. What People Are Saying U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News: "Right now, we've got assets in the region and we're going to defend them. We're strong, we're prepared, we're defensive ... President Trump hopes there can be peace." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Saturday: "This is what Israel is doing with the support, the clear support of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the American people and many others in the world. So, with God's help and with the goodwill and resolution of all free societies, we shall win." Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote on X: "American Forces are maintaining their defensive posture & that has not changed. We will protect American troops & our interests." What Happens Next Trump, who made an early exit from the G7 summit on Monday against the backdrop of Israel-Iran escalation, is expected to convene with the National Security Council. This could give a clearer picture of whether the United States becomes involved in attacks on Iran. Any Iranian attack on U.S. forces could well also bring the United States into the war.