Politics as a Safety Risk

Many posts have discussed  partisan polarization and political violence.

Benedict Vigers at Pew:

Although Americans are most likely to name road accidents and crime as the two biggest threats to their personal safety, no other population in the world is more likely to identify politics as a safety concern.

According to a 2026 Lloyd's Register Foundation World Risk Poll report, one in 10 U.S. adults identify politics as the greatest source of risk to their personal safety when asked an open-ended question. This is up from 6% in both 2021 and 2023 and 10 times the global average of 1% across 140 countries.

The U.S. statistically ties with Hungary (at 9%, measured several months before the recent election) for the highest percentage of adults identifying politics as their top safety concern. Other countries with relatively high percentages of mentions include Serbia, Latvia and Lithuania (at 6% each) and Slovakia, Russia, Myanmar, Spain and Israel (all at 5%).

...

Polarization unites these responses, whether people express it directly or indirectly. Many Democrats cite the current administration, while many Republicans point to the Democratic Party — both indirect demonstrations of polarization. However, others from across the political spectrum name polarization and the wider political climate directly when thinking about risks to their safety:

“I would have to say the state of polarization of the American people.” (Republican, 54, Male)

“I would say political extremism. I don't have a lot of personal risk, but I do feel the biggest risk is people that are fanatical about their position and that they could be violent.” (Independent, 42, Male)

“The political situation has a lot to do with the fact whether if I am safe or not. I am concerned where we're going or might go.” (Democrat, 69, Female)

 

 

"Victim" Group Is a Front for Utility Companies

A number of posts have discussed Astroturf, i.e., artificial grassroots lobbying.  Interest groups create front groups to disguise their true aims.

Melody Petersen at LAT:

A group claiming to represent California fire survivors began sending mailers and paying for social media ads this spring, calling on lawmakers to take action to reduce the rising cost of wildfires.

“Contact your legislator and tell them we need to fix our wildfire problem to make California more affordable,” said a mailer sent this month by the group called Wildfire Victims First.

“Stand with wildfire victims,” the group’s website states, urging people to join its cause.

The group was created with money from California’s three biggest for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — which government investigators found ignited at least six of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires.

The corporate campaign has angered wildfire survivors, including some of the thousands of families in Altadena who lost their homes in last year’s Eaton fire. The blaze, which killed 19 people, remains under investigation. Edison has said its century-old transmission line is the likely cause.

The utility-funded group is lobbying in Sacramento for proposals in a study that Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered to guide lawmakers in writing wildfire-related bills. The study largely ignored utilities’ responsibility for igniting fires.

Among its dozens of proposals is limiting amounts victims can get for pain and suffering, capping fees for attorneys representing survivors and requiring property insurers to bear more of the cost of utility-sparked fires.

”Each proposal would shift more of the cost of catastrophic fires away from the corporations responsible and onto survivors, policyholders, taxpayers, and the public,” wrote Joy Chen of Every Fire Survivor’s Network in a letter to Newsom this week.

Chen wrote that the industry-funded Wildfire Victims First campaign “created the appearance that wildfire survivors supported” the findings of the study. “We do not.”

Opinion on Immigration Proposals

Many posts have discussed immigration. 

Megan Brenan at Gallup:

Beyond general views on immigration, the telephone poll measured Americans’ support for five specific policy proposals. The highest levels of support are seen for two proposals related to citizenship, with slightly more in favor of allowing immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements (81%) than doing the same for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally (75%). In each case, more Americans “strongly favor” the proposal than just “favor” it.

 

Trust Over Time

 Many posts have discussed confidence in institutions.

Bruce Mehlman:

Aging Congress

Many posts have discussed the state of Congress.

Elena Shao at NYT:

The sudden death of Senator Lindsey Graham, the 71-year-old Republican of South Carolina, has renewed criticism of an increasingly aging Congress and the systems and norms that continue to reward seniority and tenure.

More than a third of U.S. senators are 70 or older. In the Senate and the House, that age cohort has grown markedly over the past few decades, and now makes up a quarter of membership across both chambers.

 

"Heritage Americans"

Many posts have discussed patriotism and the role of religion in American life. 

The late John McCain said: "We are citizens of the world's greatest republic, a nation of ideals, not blood and soil."

Karl Rove at WSJ:

Creating America wasn’t easy, and the fulfillment of our founding documents still demands much. But we make a grave mistake if we think this nation is only for what some call “heritage Americans,” whose forebears—specifically Anglo and Scots-Irish Protestants—fought in the Revolution or Civil War.

This notion that there is a select subset of “real” Americans is being pushed by, among others, Vice President JD Vance. He says that “America is not just an idea” but “a particular place, with a particular people.” Our country is more than an idea, but it began as one. Our people are particular, yet it makes no difference whether your forebear wintered at Valley Forge or fought at Gettysburg. What matters is living up to the Declaration’s promises.

It is ironic that Mr. Vance, a Catholic convert, would advocate “heritage Americans.” In the past, such movements routinely declared Catholics unacceptable members of our national family. One of the largest such groups was the American Protective Association, an anti-immigrant organization in the Gilded Age. It claimed 2.5 million adherents at its height. Its members swore an oath denouncing the pope and “the diabolical work of the Roman Catholic Church.” The APA was particularly strong in Mr. Vance’s home state of Ohio.

This notion of “heritage Americans” is at odds with the Declaration. America’s birth didn’t include a new aristocracy based on inherited valor.

Consider some Americans without Revolution or Civil War forebears: Elon Musk, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Nvidia co-founder Jensen Huang, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlize Theron, Hakeem Olajuwon, former Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Salma Hayek, Henry Kissinger, Oracle’s Safra Catz, Bob Hope, Irving Berlin, Interactive Brokers’ founder Thomas Peterffy, Yo-Yo Ma, Alex Trebek and at least 40 winners of the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

Noncitizens on the Voter Rolls?

Many posts have discussed immigration. Illegal voting by noncitizens is rare.

 Last night, Trump claimed there were 278,000 noncitizens who had registered to vote.  At PolitiFact, Louis Jacobson provides reasons for skepticism.

Experts cited several reasons to be cautious about the headline number and how Trump and Mullin framed it.

For starters, Homeland Security’s letters to state officials used more cautious language — glossed over in public remarks by Trump and Mullin — that called it a "preliminary review" and said that there "may be as many as" the number of noncitizens they found on the voter rolls.

At his press conference, Mullin did not identify the individuals as potential noncitizens; he simply called them "noncitizens."

Another reason for caution is history.

In the past, when government officials have announced initial numbers of noncitizens on voter rolls, those figures have dropped dramatically after months of vetting by state and local officials and the media.

In 2012, then-Florida Gov. Rick Scott ordered state officials to clear the rolls of noncitizen voters ahead of the election.

Florida initially assembled a list of about 180,000 potential noncitizens. With more scrutiny, however, officials whittled the count to about 2,600 names, then 198, then 85. The initial list was rife with errors, even flagging a Brooklyn-born World War II veteran.