Mark Carney turns the world on its ear with a Davos speech that quotes Václav Havel and Thucydides. Pierre Poilievre, having saved his Conservative leadership bacon, for the nonce, with a forty-nine-minute convention keynote, responds to Carney with a six-page written statement.
In perhaps a vain attempt to prove themselves moderate, the Democratic lawmakers helped override Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's vetoes. Voters responded with the kind of ballot-box fury that should serve as a lesson to other incumbents. It wasn't just a case that the incumbents lost. They were buried, with several of them getting trounced by margins of 40 points or more.
In the early 20th century, sociologist Max Weber noted that sweeping industrialization would transform how societies worked. As small, informal operations gave way to large, complex organizations with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, leaders would need to rely less on tradition and charisma, and more on organization and rationality. He also foresaw that jobs would need to be broken down into specialized tasks and governed by a system of hierarchy,
Charlie Warzel opens with what it means to live in 2026, when our phones can drop us into graphic, real-time violence without warning-and when documenting that violence can be both traumatizing and politically consequential. Using recent footage out of Minneapolis as a lens, he explores the uneasy collision of algorithmic feeds, misinformation, and the moral weight of witnessing. Charlie also traces how viral documentation can puncture official narratives, pushing stories beyond political circles and even into "apolitical" corners of the internet.
We argue that "faculty members could hold strong viewpoints and yet act in accordance with the highest professional standards." We state emphatically that "it is not possible to make faculty experts refrain from articulating any political viewpoint" while adding that "it is possible to require that they limit the viewpoints expressed in classes to those that are academically justifiable and germane, and to create a space in class where other defensible positions can be expressed."
Populism may well have been the defining word of the previous decade: a shorthand for the insurgent parties that came to prominence in the 2010s, challenging the dominance of the liberal centre. But no sooner had it become the main rubric for discussing both the far left and far right than commentators began to question its validity: worrying that it was too vague, or too pejorative, or fuelling the forces to which it referred.
The principle of intellectual charity is fundamental to constructive political conversations. This principle states that, in any discussion, we should accept the best version of an opponent's ideas, not a distorted version or a "straw man." Exaggeration and distortion of opposing opinions (always present, to some degree, in political debates) have become the standard form of political argument in contemporary America.
He is not worthy of the presidency. He takes bribes blatantly. And now he's being a racist, blatantly. They were supposed to deport the dangerous criminals. They were not supposed to go after small children, storm schools, bring terror upon, you know, the little kids and the women and children, not just the immigrants in the school. All the children are scared.
I am using the word pragmatism in a specific sense. I am not speaking about being pragmatic as a political tactic; deciding what issues should be given priority and what battles to choose, or a willingness to compromise, or a recognition that there are limits to what can be accomplished at any time. I am writing now about pragmatism in a meaning closer to its philosophical origin in the writings of William James-that truth is not found in abstract principles or beliefs,
Blasting away one of Labour's biggest majorities shows that under the more left-populist leadership of Zack Polanski, the Greens are now playing in a different political league. Polanski and the party's new MP, Hannah Spencer, were explicit that they do not see this as a self-contained local contest but as the blueprint for all sorts of other parts of the country.
Lawmakers described routine death threats, armed protesters in galleries, and explicit fears for spouses and children. Several said the June 2025 assassination of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband fundamentally changed how they assess the risks of staying in office. Case in point: Connecticut State Rep. Corey Paris, 34, reported death threats and calls for violence against him and his family last year after he posted on social media encouraging people to share information on ICE activity.
The truth is that as a country we have often found one reason or another to let the powerful escape the consequences of their actions. Consider Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederate States of America, commander in chief of a rebellion that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Davis spent two years in federal custody after the end of the war. The indictment against him was dismissed following his release, and he spent the rest of his life a free man.
If Labour wins in what has been an over-50% solid red-voting area since the second world war, that will calm nerves on its febrile back (and front) benches. If Labour loses, heavy blame will fall on Keir Starmer for fixing the party's ruling NEC to bar Andy Burnham's selection, ensuring he couldn't challenge for the leadership without a Westminster seat.
As any political adviser worth their salt will attest, it's never too soon to start privately preparing for your candidate's future leadership bid. Yet going too early with registering that all-important website risks telegraphing one's intentions even before the starting gun has fired. Whoever is behind the site bearing her name, Angela Rayner is now facing awkward questions after it emerged that an unfinished site apparently touting her for Labour's top job had briefly appeared online.
