Context

By 1979 on Saturday Night Live, we normalized polarization and incivility. It was all in “good humor” as a comedy routine.

Weekend Update: Jane, You Ignorant Slut – SNL

By 1992 politicians learned that black/white, good/bad, right/wrong framing of political issues was most effective. No more late-night sessions in a “smoke filled room”. No more compromises. No more earmarks or logrolling. Political parties must be philosophically consistent. No personal relations among congresspeople. No great existential threat, country, philosophy or doctrine to oppose together. Modern marketing and psychology provided the insights and tools to truly manipulate the public. Emotions are more powerful than logic. Hate and fear are stronger than hope. Compromise is immoral. Framing the discussion and providing the right language is most effective.

Republicans learned much faster than Democrats who held onto their historical successes, clung to rationality, facts and experts, embraced progressive trends, worshipped ideals above results, were slow to leverage modern political technologies, and truly believed they would prevail simply because they were right.

In hindsight, the path forward was obvious. Find issues that are emotionally charged. Define them as good versus evil. Manage the conceptual frames to make your position appear reasonable and the opponents extreme or radical. Use actions, political activity and the media to focus attention on the issues that are most favorable to your party at any point in time. The ends justify the means. “Winning is the only thing”. I have to respond to my opponents. Fight against evil doers. Enable victimhood. We have experienced 40 years of the downward spiral.

Situation

We are polarized. We have lost trust. We are skeptical and pessimistic. Does this make any sense? We live in the greatest country in the greatest time in history. Our parents and grandparents defeated fascism, nationalism, totalitarianism and communism. They learned to tame business cycles. They tripled international trade for mutual benefit. They established global alliances and organizations to solve problems and reduce the risks of conflicts. They quadrupled real output per person. They reduced global poverty by 80%. They extended human lifespans by two decades. I want to argue that the apparent political conflicts in the US today are a “grand illusion”. First, let’s outline the 5 main dimensions of politics.

The Grand Illusion

Political Dimensions – Google AI 8/24/2026

The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.

Federal Power (National vs. State)

• The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
• Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
• Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.

The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)

• The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
• Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
• Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.

Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)

• The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
• Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
• Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)

• The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
• Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
• Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.

Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)

• The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
• Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
• Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.

Analysis and Hope

Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.

Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.

Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.

The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.

Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.

Summary

Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today. We are not a statist France. Delegate as much as possible to the states. Re-establish “checks and balances” and “the rule of law”.

Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.

Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.

Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.

Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.

There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.

Context

70% of Americans oppose the construction of large-scale data centers locally. More Democrats oppose building, but this is a rare bipartisan topic that all politicians are digesting and turning into a campaign issue. Why do so many Americans oppose this? Is the opposition well-founded? The most recent Gallup poll identified more than 25 reasons for opposition.

1. Negative views on AI. Government regulation of AI is inadequate versus its existential threats to humanity. Stop it locally. Like the atomic bomb, nuclear power, chemical and biological weapons, bioengineering, and GMOs people cannot assess the cost/benefit ratio or assess the threats to jobs, white collar jobs, service jobs, manufacturing jobs, health care jobs, society, democracy, working class, etc. The undefined and unlimited risk is so large it must be stopped. Is this logical? Given the lack of congressional, professional, business, university, church or high-tech deep understanding, pausing AI is reasonable. Stopping data center construction is something that local citizens and politicians can do because they don’t have confidence in national leaders. There is a Frankenstein and Godzilla dimension to this.
2. Excess water usage. Local government approvals should consider water usage. Data centers should be built in places with adequate water supplies. Many have been built or proposed in areas without surplus water supplies. Developers develop. That’s what they do. Local regulators must consider all factors for zoning and development deals. Citizens are not confident that politicians or regulators will make wise decisions. Data centers don’t consume large quantities of water. Local governments can require them to use closed loop system that greatly reduce water usage.
3. Electricity consumption increases electricity rates. Public utility regulators are charged with spreading costs across all uses. New usage should not increase rates. Regulators can force very large users, like data centers, to pay for some extra costs of start-up and operation.
4. Electricity consumption threatens grid reliability. States and regions plan 20-30 years in advance. The recent increase in electricity demand and the addition of greater wind/solar power sources makes grid management more challenging. Data centers are not a major threat.
5. Electricity consumption undermines the transition to green energy sources. Again, this is a state regulatory issue. The blend of fossil versus green energy is a power company and state regulation choice. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and tide sources are increasingly competitive. Natural gas is the “swing” source and coal is uncompetitive.
6. Data center is an imperfect local land use. From the local community perspective, land could/should be used for farming, parks, nature, community centers, higher tax value uses, greater employment uses, greater total economic value uses, etc. Again, local zoning/regulation should shape this decision. Are local politicians accountable for their decisions?
7. Data centers are ugly, like cell phone towers, only huge. Another local zoning issue. Does this fit within “light industrial” zoning? It looks like a huge warehouse, without all of the doors and traffic.
8. NIMBY. I don’t want this locally. Let someone else host it. With proper zoning, data centers don’t harm property values. After construction, traffic is minimal.
9. Taxpayer subsidies are too high. Probably. Press local politicians. No subsidies are required.
10. Data center zoning/development/subsidy deals are hidden. Increased transparency is called for today.
11. Data centers generate local pollution. Another regulation issue. Noise limits for AC and backup generators. This is a minor issue.
12. Water and electricity usage requires capital investments. Regulated utilities are empowered to set rates to all users based upon total lifetime costs. In general, utility capacity can be added at lower than legacy capacity costs through time. It cannot be grown quickly without rate increases or rate setting that penalizes new users such as data centers or that requires new users to fund/subsidize construction and rates for a while.

Summary

Data center construction is opposed because citizens have lost trust in government, regulators, bureaucrats, politicians, big business, technology, promises, experts and deals. Ouch.

Historically, leaders found ways to work “behind the scenes” to resolve, compromise or guide issues to acceptable conclusions. Perhaps not optimal, wise or representing the people, but reasonable.

We have a crisis of governance. The polarized political parties, legislative gridlock, dueling lawsuits, complex issues, undermining of experts, data and rationality have left us angry and uninterested in problem solving.

As Thomas Paine said during the American Revolution, “these are the times that try men’s souls.” Are the differences insurmountable?

Political Dimensions – Google AI 8/24/2026

The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.

Federal Power (National vs. State)

• The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
• Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
• Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.

The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)

• The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
• Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
• Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.

Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)

• The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
• Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
• Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)

• The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
• Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
• Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.

Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)

• The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
• Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
• Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.

Analysis and Hope

Our challenges today are mainly political. We, the best educated, wealthiest, most productive and knowledgeable citizens of all time, have allowed politics to be framed as existential battles. They are not. Citizens must step up to oppose the politics of demonization and division.

Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.

Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.

Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.

The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.

Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.

Summary 2

Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today.

Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.

Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.

Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.

Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.

There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.

Americans Oppose AI Data Centers in Their Area

Data center moratoriums are not a substitute for oversight | Brookings

Why are communities pushing back against data centers? — Harvard Gazette

Opposition to AI data centers – Wikipedia

Americans’ AI data center concerns don’t hold water | Opinion

Why does everyone hate data centers? – by Nate Silver

Data center opposition is rising sharply, Penn survey says – WYYY

Data centers “dug their own grave,” says Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

7 Ways Data Centers Affect US Communities | World Resources Institute

Opposition to Local Data Centers Rises Sharply, Annenberg Survey Finds | The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania