View this post on the web at [link removed]

Many Americans fret about the hyperpartisanship that has a firm grip on the U.S., and there’s no shortage of explanations for why it persists. Certainly, political leaders and members of the media who stoke divisions share a sizable portion of the blame—but so may your great-uncle Joe, your cousin Sue, your next door neighbor, or your best friend from elementary school. It’s not as strange as it sounds. Last month, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger [ [link removed] ], who famously held the line when fellow Republican Donald Trump asked him to “find” a few more votes in 2020, was asked by a reporter about the “weakest link in the chain” for American democracy. He responded: disinformation. It’s pretty simple. You might be willing to disbelieve a politician or a media pundit you don’t like. But our personal ties to family and friends incline us to trust what they tell us, especially if the disinformation is presented among family photos, birthday greetings, and other benign social media postings. Sometimes the disinformation even goes beyond rumors [ [link removed] ] about hacked voting machines and dirty election officials. The moral of this story? There truly is no substitute for credible sources and critical thinking…perhaps especially when it comes to our BFFs. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor
Ed. Note: This is the last issue of The Topline before our brief hiatus. We’ll be back in a few weeks with a new and improved Topline. Any feedback to share? Let us know [ [link removed] ]. We’ll see you soon!
Biden meets Marcos in Washington amid tensions with China — [ [link removed] ]The New York Times [ [link removed] ]
JPMorgan Chase buys troubled First Republic Bank after U.S. government takeover — [ [link removed] ]NPR [ [link removed] ]
800,000 people could be forced to flee Sudan conflict, UN says — [ [link removed] ]NBC News [ [link removed] ]
Biden orders 1,500 more troops to Mexico border amid migration surge — [ [link removed] ]The Washington Post [ [link removed] ]
Texas mass shooter arrested after days-long manhunt — [ [link removed] ]Houston Chronicle [ [link removed] ]
Surgeon general declares loneliness epidemic, saying it poses risks as deadly as smoking — [ [link removed] ]CBS News [ [link removed] ]
Muslim mayor denied entry to White House Eid event slams ‘Islamophobia’ — [ [link removed] ]Axios [ [link removed] ]
Judge recuses himself from overseeing Catholic bankruptcy — [ [link removed] ]Associated Press [ [link removed] ]
Longtime Sen. Ben Cardin not running for reelection, opening blue-state Senate seat — [ [link removed] ]Politico [ [link removed] ]
No Labels’ Georgia chapter says it’s not interested in fielding a third-party presidential candidate — [ [link removed] ]Atlanta Civic Circle [ [link removed] ]
The good, the bad, and the Speaker
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has been busy this week, and for the most part, we’re in support of some of his efforts. First and foremost, he has accepted an invitation by President Biden to meet about the debt limit on May 9. The White House also invited Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—and not a moment too soon. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned yesterday, “After reviewing recent federal tax receipts, our best estimate is that we will be unable to continue to satisfy all of the government’s obligations by early June, and potentially as early as June 1, if Congress does not raise or suspend the debt limit before that time.” Tick tock. —The Hill [ [link removed] ]
“President Biden hasn’t talked to me about the debt ceiling for the last 80 some days or so.” On his first foreign trip as Speaker, McCarthy stopped in Israel yesterday, where he addressed a full session of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. He took the opportunity to place himself in the middle of a widening rift between Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the latter’s controversial push to gain greater control over the country’s Supreme Court. McCarthy criticized Biden for not hosting the premier since his return to power four months ago and compared it to their debt ceiling standoff. It was an unnecessary cheap shot to make on foreign shores. —The Washington Post [ [link removed] ]
“I do not support what your country has done to Ukraine.” McCarthy gets high marks from us, however, for how he handled a question from a Russian reporter while in Israel. The reporter suggested that McCarthy does not support aid to Ukraine or continued U.S. support for the country in its battle against Russia. “No, I vote for aid for Ukraine. I support aid for Ukraine. ... I do not support your killing of the children,” McCarthy replied. “And I think for one standpoint, you should pull out. ... And we will continue to support [Ukraine], because the rest of the world sees it just as it is.” Amen. —The Hill [ [link removed] ]
“They can get more knowledge before we’re doing any legislation.” Also in the positive column, McCarthy has launched an effort to get members of Congress educated on artificial intelligence, as the rapidly advancing technology enters more facets of everyday life, and pressure to regulate it grows. Lawmakers heard from two MIT-based AI experts last week, and McCarthy stressed the importance of a bipartisan approach to the issue, noting that its relevance spans multiple Congressional committees. “It’s great because members on both sides of the aisle can be here,” he said. Sounds good to us. —Fox News [ [link removed] ]
MORE: House Democrats move to force a debt-limit increase as default date looms — [ [link removed] ]The New York Times [ [link removed] ]
Ed Board: Time to hit the brakes on AI
“Humans have long wrestled to keep morality and ethics a step ahead of emerging technologies. A regulatory agency may have difficulty keeping a lid on research. Unlike with nuclear weapons productions, AI research and development in far-away lands cannot be easily detected using satellite surveillance. But it’s clearly important that the world draws clear lines and that a regulatory body be established to enforce those boundaries. AI holds great promise, including even cures to diseases. But the technology should also be treated with the utmost care. The stakes are too high for anything less.” —Deseret News [ [link removed] ]
MORE: AI-enabled disinformation: Waging an unviable war of scale — [ [link removed] ]Rappler [ [link removed] ]
Oh CNN, why?
Remember how the media was blamed for “normalizing” Donald Trump in 2016 and giving him thousands of hours of earned media? CNN is ready to rinse and repeat, inviting the ex-president to participate in a prime-time presidential town hall next week in New Hampshire. Host Kaitlan Collins will moderate the event at St. Anselm College, where Trump will take questions from New Hampshire Republicans and undeclared voters who plan to vote in the state’s 2024 presidential primary. Trump remains the GOP frontrunner, despite having been impeached by the U.S. House for incitement of insurrection and indicted on fraud charges in New York—as well as facing additional legal peril in Washington and Georgia. And apparently, attempting to overthrow American democracy isn’t a dealbreaker where cable news ratings are concerned either. —CNN [ [link removed] ]
MORE: Americans fault news media for dividing nation: AP-NORC poll — [ [link removed] ]Associated Press [ [link removed] ]
What Republicans want
A new survey from CBS News aimed to find out. Looking ahead to 2024, among likely Republican primary voters, 49% are considering Donald Trump and at least one other candidate from eight additional declared or potential candidates for the GOP presidential nomination. The NeverTrump Republican contingency, which picked up a few former Trump voters who say they are “exhausted” by Trump, is holding firm at 27%, and the smallest group are OnlyTrumpers, at 24% of those surveyed. But Trump still commands Republican loyalty: only 7% of voters want a candidate that will criticize him.
On issues, majorities of GOP voters want a candidate who “challenges woke ideas” (85%), opposes any gun restrictions (66%), denies the legitimacy of the 2020 election (61%), and “makes liberals angry” (57%). About half want a candidate who favors a national abortion ban, and four in 10 want a candidate to favor Christians over other religious groups. For those keeping score at home, three of those interests aren’t directly policy-related, and the other three are extreme positions not supported by most Americans. —CBS News [ [link removed] ]
RELATED NEWS:
Have state Republicans have gone from opposing Democrats to opposing democracy? — [ [link removed] ]The Hill [ [link removed] ]
Those meddling kids! Republicans are targeting college students for vote suppression — [ [link removed] ]St. Louis Post-Dispatch [ [link removed] ]
Zooey Zephyr row spotlights rise of GOP far-right caucuses — [ [link removed] ]Associated Press [ [link removed] ]
Ryan Webb’s gender claim creates outcry at county council meeting — [ [link removed] ]The Star Press [ [link removed] ]
Marjorie Taylor Greene begs Donald Trump for more ‘mean tweets’ — [ [link removed] ]Newsweek [ [link removed] ]
Anderson: The way out of polarization begins with independents
“This group of American adults, maybe 100 million Americans, can be a source of hope, love, and commitment to one America. Leaders must listen to them, as they are not organized and have no clear leaders. These independents, though, can help pundits, the media, and politicians with the very challenging task to craft a concept of America that will weave together important strands of Democratic and Republican doctrines without incorporating the one-sidedness and anger of the two parties today.” —Dave Anderson in The Fulcrum [ [link removed] ]
Dave Anderson edited “Leveraging: A Political, Economic, and Societal Framework,” has taught at five universities, and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
MORE: Understanding what democracy means proves key to supporting it, study finds — [ [link removed] ]Phys.org [ [link removed] ]
This month’s read is: “Alt-Right Gangs” by Matthew Valasik and Shannon E. Reid
When we think about the white power movement, what usually springs to mind are grown men joining paramilitary outfits such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, etc. But what about the kids? In “Alt-Right Gangs,” Matthew Valasik and Shannon E. Reid explore the myths and realities of youth-oriented groups within the white power movement. It’s a must-read for anyone looking to learn about and expand their understanding of such organizations. Valasik and Reid provide insight into how alt-right gangs leverage music, social media, and other propaganda to mainstream their views, and why youths are joining these outfits.
As alt-right gangs have found their way into the mainstream, academic researchers and journalists who have studied these groups typically focus on adult members, and there is a gap in research about—as well as understanding of—the youth who join alt-right gangs. Fortunately, Valasik and Reid have closed this gap by presenting well-researched and in-depth analysis on what entices a young person to join such groups. The authors also shed light on what causes them to leave these gangs, and they provide key intervention and prevention strategies that can be implemented alongside current anti-gang initiatives led by law enforcement agencies at all levels.
Valasik and Reid present knowledgeable research to the reader that is easily understood and digested. “Alt-Right Gangs” can and should be used by policymakers, law enforcement officials, and everyday Americans to understand the growing problem posed by the white power movement in America. —Mary Anna Mancuso, Political Strategist
Have you read this? Share your thoughts with me on Twitter @MaryAnnaMancuso [ [link removed] ]
Want to purchase this book? Click here [ [link removed] ]
Have a recommendation for my next Book Corner? Send it my way: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ]
As we approach the debt limit and the possibility of a catastrophic default on U.S. government financial obligations, it may be worthwhile to recall some macroeconomic history. The last time the federal government budget was roughly in balance was during the Clinton Administration, as a direct result of the tax increase that George H.W. Bush agreed to in budget negotiations with a Democratic Congress in 1990. It was a moment of courageous leadership, which the first President Bush paid for. Fellow Republicans like Newt Gingrich pilloried him; Pat Buchanan tried to “primary” him in 1992. Weakened and discredited politically, he lost his re-election bid in a three-way race, in which Ross Perot siphoned off the support of disillusioned Republicans who sought somebody from the business world that seemed suitably authentic.
The controversial tax increase put the federal budget on firmer ground and led to President Clinton’s attempt to address Social Security reform in his second term, a failed initiative that could only have been attempted at the time if the discretionary portion of the federal budget hadn’t been back in balance. Clinton was the beneficiary of George H.W. Bush’s courage.
The elder Bush’s courage was the last time the Republican Party has stood for fiscal responsibility. The tax cuts introduced by his son, and the tax cut from the Trump Administration, have been mostly responsible for the fiscal situation we are facing today.
Who has actually noticed an effect of those tax cuts on one’s own net take-home paycheck? Has anyone noticed? Is it possible that the Republican Party has been selling a political line that sounds appealing and panders to popular, nurtured anti-government sentiment, but doesn’t actually make a noticeable difference to the individual American, and in fact has significant negative consequences in the aggregate? Have we all been sold this tax-cutting line a little too long?
To be sure, nobody likes to pay taxes, but like vegetables, they are necessary. Perhaps it’s time for Americans to grow up. —Steve J., Pennsylvania
The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Renew America Foundation.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?