#460 — When the Center Cannot Hold
In this episode of Making Sense, Sam Harris and Jonah Goldberg examine how the Trump administration has affected traditional political institutions and norms in the United States. They analyze the breakdown of the "presumption of regularity" principle among federal judges and discuss how government agencies' independence has been compromised, particularly focusing on changes at the FCC.
The conversation explores current challenges in American politics, including the difficulties of restoring normal political functioning after periods of extreme partisanship. Harris and Goldberg discuss potential reforms to primary systems and campaign finance, internal divisions within the Republican Party, and the rise of what Goldberg terms "anti-anti-Trump" sentiment. They also address expectations for upcoming midterm elections and their potential impact on executive oversight.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Feb 20, 2026 episode of the Making Sense with Sam Harris
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
Erosion of Political Norms and Institutions Under Trump
The Trump administration has significantly eroded traditional political norms and institutions in the United States. Under Trump's "personalist regime," the line between his personal interests and state demands became increasingly blurred. Federal judges, including conservatives, lost faith in the government's honesty, abandoning the long-held "presumption of regularity" principle. This erosion extended to government agencies, with Trump loyalists notably compromising the FCC's independence and nonpartisanship.
Challenges of Resetting Political Norms and Bipartisanship
Sam Harris and Jonah Goldberg explore the difficulties of returning to normal political functioning after extreme partisanship. Goldberg notes that even a "sane" president would face challenges in depoliticizing government institutions without appearing partisan. He explains that the current political dynamics push both parties to pander to their extremes rather than the center, fueled by social media and partisan news outlets. To address these issues, Goldberg suggests reforms to the primary system and campaign finance structures to prioritize swing voters over fringe ones.
The Potential Impact of the Upcoming Midterm Elections
Looking toward the midterms, Goldberg predicts Democrats will likely regain House control, potentially leading to enhanced executive oversight but risking overreach and gridlock. While the Senate outlook remains uncertain, Goldberg suggests Democrats may tighten the Republican margin. Both Harris and Goldberg express concerns about Trump potentially undermining the electoral process or disputing results.
Internal Divisions and Extremism Within the Republican Party
The Republican Party faces significant internal divisions regarding extremism and Trumpism. Goldberg discusses the emergence of an "anti-anti-Trump" mentality, exemplified by figures like J.D. Vance defending white nationalists to oppose anti-Trump sentiment. The podcast highlights a concerning lack of GOP opposition to Trumpism, with few conservative figures willing to criticize Trump or reject extremism. This reflects a broader challenge within the party, where loyalty to Trump often supersedes traditional conservative principles and democratic norms.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- A "personalist regime" is a political system where power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader who prioritizes personal loyalty over institutional rules. In such regimes, the leader often blurs the line between their private interests and official government duties. This leads to weakened institutions and diminished checks and balances. The term applies to the Trump administration because Trump's leadership style centered on personal loyalty and often disregarded traditional institutional norms.
- The "presumption of regularity" is a legal principle that assumes government officials and agencies act lawfully and properly unless proven otherwise. It helps courts trust official actions without requiring extensive proof of legitimacy in every case. This principle supports judicial efficiency and stability by preventing constant challenges to government decisions. When judges lose faith in this presumption, it signals deep mistrust in government integrity.
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in the U.S. Its independence means it operates without political pressure, ensuring fair and unbiased regulation. This independence helps maintain a level playing field for media companies and protects free speech. When compromised, the FCC may favor certain political interests, undermining public trust and media neutrality.
- Depoliticizing government institutions means ensuring they operate based on laws and expertise, not party politics or personal agendas. It is challenging because political actors often seek to influence these institutions to gain power or advance their goals. Additionally, public trust and institutional norms must be rebuilt after periods of politicization. Media and social pressures also intensify partisan divides, making neutral governance harder to achieve.
- Social media algorithms prioritize content that generates strong emotional reactions, often amplifying extreme or divisive views. Partisan news outlets tailor their coverage to reinforce the beliefs of their audience, reducing exposure to opposing perspectives. This creates echo chambers where users mainly encounter information that confirms their existing views. As a result, political polarization intensifies, making compromise and bipartisan dialogue more difficult.
- In the U.S., primary elections are preliminary contests where party members select their candidate for the general election. These primaries can be open, closed, or semi-closed, determining who can vote in them. Campaign finance refers to the fundraising and spending of money to promote candidates or policies, regulated by laws to limit undue influence. Reforms often aim to reduce the power of extreme factions by changing how candidates are funded and chosen.
- Swing voters are individuals who do not consistently support a single political party and can be persuaded to vote for different candidates in different elections. Fringe voters are those with extreme or highly partisan views who strongly support one side regardless of broader consensus. Elections often hinge on winning swing voters because they represent the moderate, undecided, or less predictable portion of the electorate. Targeting swing voters encourages candidates to adopt more centrist policies to appeal to a wider audience.
- When Democrats regain House control, they can use their committees to investigate and check the president's actions, known as executive oversight. Overreach occurs if Congress pushes investigations or laws too aggressively, potentially alienating the public or other branches. Gridlock happens when opposing parties block each other's initiatives, causing legislative stagnation. This can slow government functions and frustrate voters.
- The "anti-anti-Trump" mentality refers to a stance where individuals oppose criticism of Trump so strongly that they defend or excuse problematic behavior linked to him. It prioritizes loyalty to Trump over opposing extremism or upholding traditional conservative values. This mindset often leads to dismissing or downplaying concerns about white nationalism or other controversial issues if they are framed as attacks on Trump. It reflects a shift in some GOP circles where defending Trump becomes more important than addressing broader political or ethical problems.
- J.D. Vance is an American author and politician known for his memoir "Hillbilly Elegy," which explores working-class white culture. He is a prominent figure in the Republican Party and a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. Vance's relevance lies in his role as a defender of Trump-aligned views, including controversial stances on race and nationalism. His position exemplifies the internal GOP divisions and the rise of Trumpism within the party.
- "Trumpism" refers to a political ideology and style associated with Donald Trump, emphasizing nationalism, populism, and skepticism of traditional institutions. It often includes strong opposition to immigration, trade protectionism, and a confrontational approach to political opponents. Within the GOP, Trumpism has shifted focus from traditional conservative policies to loyalty to Trump and his agenda. This has caused divisions between Trump loyalists and more traditional conservatives.
- Loyalty to Trump overriding traditional conservative principles means prioritizing support for Trump personally over established party values like limited government or free markets. This shift can weaken democratic norms by tolerating or excusing actions that undermine checks and balances, rule of law, or fair elections. It often leads to internal party conflicts and reduces accountability for undemocratic behavior. Such dynamics risk eroding institutional trust and political stability.
Counterarguments
- The erosion of political norms and institutions is not unique to the Trump administration; other administrations have also faced similar accusations.
- The concept of a "personalist regime" may be overstated, as the executive branch has historically had significant leeway in setting policy and agenda.
- The loss of faith by federal judges could be seen as a reflection of broader societal polarization rather than solely the actions of the Trump administration.
- The independence of government agencies like the FCC has been challenged in past administrations by both Republican and Democratic presidents.
- It could be argued that returning to normal political functioning is always a challenge after periods of heightened partisanship, regardless of the president in power.
- Efforts to depoliticize government institutions could be seen as a necessary corrective action rather than a partisan maneuver.
- The focus on extremes by political parties may be a response to genuine voter sentiments rather than simply a product of social media and partisan news outlets.
- Reforms to prioritize swing voters could be criticized for potentially marginalizing the legitimate concerns of more ideologically committed party members.
- Predictions about election outcomes, such as Democrats regaining House control, are speculative and subject to change based on a variety of factors.
- Concerns about Trump undermining the electoral process or disputing results may not materialize, and such predictions could be seen as alarmist.
- The internal divisions within the Republican Party may reflect healthy debate and ideological diversity rather than just extremism or Trumpism.
- The "anti-anti-Trump" mentality could be interpreted as a defense of free speech and against what some see as excessive political correctness.
- The lack of GOP opposition to Trumpism may be overstated, as there are conservative figures who have criticized Trump and rejected extremism.
- Loyalty to Trump within the Republican Party could be viewed as a strategic choice by politicians reflecting their constituents' preferences rather than a wholesale abandonment of conservative principles and democratic norms.
Get access to the context and additional materials
Erosion of Political Norms and Institutions Under Trump
Under the administration of Donald Trump, there has been a notable erosion of the political norms and institutions that are foundational to the democratic governance of the United States.
Blurring Trump's Interests and State's Demands
Trump Fostered a "Personalist Regime" Where His Desires Trump Norms and Rules
Trump has been characterized as running a "personalist regime," which blurs the line between his personal aims and the interests and demands of the state. In such a system, the rules and norms that traditionally govern the separation are overshadowed by the desires of the individual in power.
Dismissal of "Presumption of Regularity" by Federal Judges
Judges Lost Trust In Government's Facts Due to Trump Administration's Lying
Due to the frequency of falsehoods presented by the Trump administration, a spectrum of federal judges, including those with conservative leanings, have lost trust in the veracity of the government's representations. This has led to the judges discarding the "presumption of regularity"—the legal principle that generally assumes the honesty of government lawyers' statements in court.
Politicization a ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Erosion of Political Norms and Institutions Under Trump
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- A "personalist regime" is a form of governance where power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader who prioritizes personal loyalty over institutional rules. Unlike institutional or bureaucratic systems, decisions are made based on the leader's preferences rather than established laws or norms. This often leads to weakened checks and balances and undermines democratic processes. Personalist regimes rely heavily on the leader's charisma and control rather than formal structures.
- The "presumption of regularity" is a legal principle that assumes government officials and agencies act properly and honestly in their official duties. Courts typically rely on this presumption to trust the accuracy of government statements and documents without requiring extra proof. It helps streamline legal proceedings by avoiding unnecessary skepticism toward government actions. When judges lose this trust, they may scrutinize government claims more critically, complicating legal processes.
- Federal judges rely on the government's factual statements to make fair decisions efficiently. When these statements are frequently false or misleading, judges must verify facts independently, slowing legal processes. Losing trust in government facts undermines the legal system's integrity and can weaken the rule of law. This shift signals a breakdown in the usual respect for government honesty in court proceedings.
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in the U.S. It ensures fair competition, protects consumers, and promotes access to communication services. The FCC also enforces laws related to broadcast content, spectrum allocation, and net neutrality. Its independence is crucial to prevent political influence over media and communication policies.
- Politicization of government agencies means they are influe ...
Counterarguments
- The concept of a "personalist regime" may be an overstatement, as checks and balances within the U.S. government, including judicial review and legislative oversight, continued to function during the Trump administration.
- The erosion of political norms and institutions can be seen as part of a longer-term trend in American politics, not unique to the Trump administration.
- The "presumption of regularity" is a legal principle that can be challenged in any administration, and skepticism by judges could be viewed as a healthy sign of judicial independence rather than a breakdown of trust.
- The politicization of government agencies is not a phenomenon exclusive to the Trump administration; allegations of such practices have occurred under previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat.
- Som ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
Challenges of Resetting Political Norms and Bipartisanship
Sam Harris and Jonah Goldberg discuss the complex task of returning to a less polarized political environment, especially after periods of extreme partisanship.
The Difficulty of Depoliticizing Government After Extreme Partisanship
"Sane" President Faces Challenges Restoring Nonpartisan Institutions Without Changing Script
Harris raises the concern of how one might reboot the political system to normality in the event a "sane" president is elected, given any initiative to change staffing might be perceived as an act of partisan tribalism, akin to the approach taken by Trump. Goldberg acknowledges this difficulty, pointing to the vicious cycle where the extremes of one party justify the radical behavior of the other, an ongoing issue that any president with aspirations for nonpartisanship needs to confront.
Goldberg points to the challenges even a sane Democratic president would face, including the pressure to target right-wing media entities. This difficulty reflects the broader issue of restoring nonpartisan government institutions and breaking the cycle of tit-for-tat partisan culture.
Need for Both Parties to Be Reasonable
Dynamics Push Parties to Pander to Extremes Over Center
Goldberg observes that the insanity of one party provides legitimacy for the other to act similarly, fueled by structural problems and the segmentation caused by social media. Goldberg proposes that the political system should return to a scenario where both parties appeal to their bases during primaries and pivot toward the center for general elections, a practice that has faded.
The tendency for parties to appease their most radical voting bases, bolstered by media outlets like Fox News and MSNBC, challenges the possibility of sensible governance that serves the entire country. Goldberg emphasizes that to establish sanity within one party, the other must also exhibit reasonableness and moderation.
Potential Reforms to Electoral and Campaign Finance Systems
Reducing Influence of Primary Voters and Special Interests Could Foster Bipartisan G ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Challenges of Resetting Political Norms and Bipartisanship
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- A "sane" president refers to a leader who acts rationally, respects democratic norms, and avoids extreme partisan tactics. This contrasts with leaders who may use divisive or unconventional methods that deepen political polarization. The term implies a desire for stability, reasoned governance, and restoring trust in institutions. It highlights the challenge of governing fairly when political opponents expect aggressive partisan behavior.
- "Partisan tribalism" refers to strong loyalty to one's political party that overrides objective judgment. In government staffing, it means appointing individuals primarily based on party allegiance rather than qualifications or neutrality. This often leads to biased decision-making and deepens political divisions. It undermines trust in institutions by prioritizing party interests over public service.
- Right-wing media entities often frame news with a conservative bias, reinforcing the views of their audience. They can amplify partisan narratives and distrust of opposing parties, deepening political divides. By prioritizing sensational or emotionally charged content, they increase viewer engagement but also polarization. This environment pressures politicians to adopt more extreme positions to gain media attention and voter support.
- Social media segmentation occurs when users are exposed primarily to content that aligns with their existing beliefs, creating echo chambers. Algorithms prioritize engagement by showing posts that reinforce users' views, limiting exposure to opposing perspectives. This intensifies political polarization by deepening divisions and reducing opportunities for dialogue. As a result, people become more entrenched in their partisan identities.
- Fox News and MSNBC are major cable news networks known for their distinct political leanings, with Fox News generally conservative and MSNBC generally liberal. They shape political behavior by framing news stories in ways that reinforce their viewers' existing beliefs, often amplifying partisan divisions. Their coverage can encourage viewers to adopt more extreme positions, reducing willingness to compromise. This media environment contributes to polarization by creating echo chambers where opposing views are rarely encountered.
- Primary elections are contests within a political party to choose its candidate for the general election. Voter turnout in primaries is typically low and dominated by the most motivated, often more ideologically extreme, party members. Candidates therefore tailor their messages to appeal to these voters to secure the nomination. This dynamic encourages pandering to the party’s ideological extremes rather than the broader electorate.
- Participatory populism in campaign finance refers to a system where candidates rely heavily on numerous small donations from many individuals, emphasizing broad grassroots involvement. Traditional democracy in this context often involved larger contributions from established donors or interest groups, focusing on organized funding. Participatory populism can shift focus from policy expertise to fundraising ability and emotional appeals to mobilize supporters. This may reduce emphasis on legislative effectiveness and increase polarization.
- Small donations come from many individual contributors giving modest amounts, often through online platforms. They can create a broad base of support and signal grassroots enthusiasm, which candidates use to build momentum. Large donors and special interests provide substantial funds that can finance expensive advertising and lobbying efforts. However, reliance on small donations may shift focus toward appealing to passionate voters rather than negotiating bipartisan policies.
- Structural reforms to electoral systems might includ ...
Actionables
- You can foster nonpartisan dialogue by starting a book club focused on political history and bipartisan successes. Invite friends with diverse political views to read and discuss books about times when American politics worked across party lines. This encourages a shared understanding of the importance of bipartisanship and the historical context of current issues.
- Engage in 'vote triage' by prioritizing your voting decisions on candidates who demonstrate a commitment to bipartisanship, regardless of their party affiliation. Research candidates' past behaviors and public statements for evidence of working across the aisle, and cast your vote based on this criterion to incentivize moderation over extremism.
- Create a personal 'media diet' ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
The Potential Impact of the Upcoming Midterm Elections
As the midterm elections approach, commentators like Goldberg and Harris weigh in on the potential political shifts and the effects on the balance of power in the American government.
Outcome of Democrats Regaining House Control
Goldberg believes the Democrats are likely to regain control of the House by a significant margin. If that happens, Goldberg indicates there could be enhanced oversight and checks on the executive branch, which he sees as beneficial for the American system of governance. However, he cautions that this might also bring about a risk of overreach and gridlock, particularly if Democrats pursue impeachment proceedings or endless investigations.
Enhance Oversight and Checks on the Executive; Risk of Overreach and Gridlock
The possibility of Democrats performing their oversight role more thoroughly if they take back control of Congress is attractive to Goldberg from a partisan perspective. However, he worries about the potential for overreach, especially if impeachment proceedings appear motivated more by partisanship than by actual presidential misconduct. On the other hand, Goldberg recognizes that President Trump may have committed acts worthy of impeachment and stresses the importance of checks on the executive.
Uncertainty Around the Senate
Despite the likely shift in House control, the Senate remains uncertain. Goldberg and Harris point out the structural issues within both parties that lead to polarization and a fractured electoral landscape.
Democrats May Tighten Margin, but Republicans Likely Maintain Control
While acknowledging that the Senate is a challenging win for Democrats, Goldberg suspects they may at least tighten the Republican margin. Republicans themselves are worried about their control over t ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The Potential Impact of the Upcoming Midterm Elections
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- While Goldberg suggests Democrats are likely to regain control of the House, it's possible that voter turnout, campaign strategies, or unforeseen political events could lead to a different outcome.
- The enhancement of oversight and checks on the executive branch could be seen as partisan obstructionism by those who support the president's agenda, potentially leading to a more divided political climate.
- The argument that increased oversight could lead to overreach and gridlock may overlook the potential for bipartisan cooperation on key issues that could benefit from increased scrutiny.
- The concern about impeachment proceedings being motivated by partisanship could be countered by the argument that holding the executive branch accountable is a constitutional duty, regardless of political affiliation.
- The acknowledgment of President Trump's potential acts worthy of impeachment could be challenged by those who believe the accusations are unfounded or politically motivated.
- The structural issues leading to polarization and a fractured electoral landscape could be seen as a reflection of a diverse electorate with varying interests, rather than a purely negative phenomenon.
- The prediction that Republicans are likely to maintain control of the Senate may not account for changing political dynamics or the impact of individual candidate campaigns.
- The concern about Republicans losing Senate control could be countered by the argument that a competitive Senate race is healthy ...
Actionables
- You can enhance your understanding of the legislative process by following a bill's journey through Congress, noting how oversight functions and where it might lead to gridlock. For example, choose a piece of legislation that interests you and track its progress on Congress.gov, observing committee hearings, floor debates, and votes to see firsthand how increased oversight operates and where it might stall.
- Engage in local community discussions to foster a balanced perspective on political issues, which can help mitigate polarization. Start by joining or forming a non-partisan discussion group in your area where members can share diverse viewpoints on current political events, aiming to understand the underlying structural issues that contribute to polarization.
- Prepare to cast an informed vote by re ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
Internal Divisions and Extremism Within the Republican Party
The Republican Party is experiencing internal divisions when it comes to accepting or rejecting fringe elements within its ranks. This divide is becoming increasingly visible as the party confronts the influence of Trumpism and extremism.
The "Anti-Anti-Trump" Mentality and Acceptance of Fringe Elements
At the center of discussions about Republican Party divisions is the "anti-anti-Trump" mentality, as highlighted by Jonah Goldberg. He explains how some conservatives take on this stance not because they are supporters of Trump, but because they strongly oppose the anti-Trump sentiment. This attitude has even resulted in an "anti-anti-Nazi" position by some, purely based on political interests, which indicates a troubling acceptance of fringe elements within the party.
J.D. Vance Defends White Nationalists and Bigots to Oppose "Anti-Trump" Sentiment
J.D. Vance, characterized as the "titular leader of the anti-anti-Nazi crowd," is known for defending individuals who are blatantly or subtly associated with neo-Nazis or bigots. This defense is seen as a political strategy that reflects an acceptance of distasteful elements to oppose anything positioned against Trump. His actions suggest an inclination within some parts of the party to accept white nationalists and bigots in the face of anti-Trump resistance.
Lack of GOP Opposition to Trumpism
The podcast conversation suggests a general lack of opposition to Trumpism within the GOP, with fewer conservative figures willing to criticize Trump or reject extremism. Ben Shapiro, the conservative commentator, is mentioned as somewhat isolated in his disapproval of Trumpism, particularly among his Jewish conservative peers. This situation implies a significant pressure within the Republican Party to align with Trumpist sentiments, leaving those opposed to such ideologies feeling ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Internal Divisions and Extremism Within the Republican Party
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- The Republican Party is a large and diverse coalition with a range of views, and not all members support or tolerate extremism.
- The term "Trumpism" is often used pejoratively and can oversimplify the beliefs of a wide array of individuals who may support some of Trump's policies but not his personality or all of his actions.
- The "anti-anti-Trump" mentality could be seen as a reaction to perceived unfair or excessive criticism of Trump and his supporters by some media outlets and political opponents.
- J.D. Vance and others may argue that their defense of certain individuals is a defense of free speech or against cancel culture, rather than an endorsement of extremist views.
- There are notable Republicans who have consistently opposed Trump and his influence, suggesting that opposition within the party is not as scarce as implied.
- The GOP's reluctance to oppose Trumpism could also be interpreted as a strategic alignment with the preferences of a significant portion of their voter base, rather than cowardice or a disregard for democratic norms.
- The characterization of the GOP-controlled Congress as institutionally misalig ...
Actionables
- You can foster critical thinking by starting a book club focused on political ideologies and democratic principles, which will help you and your peers understand the importance of upholding democratic norms over party allegiance. By reading and discussing books like "How Democracies Die" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt or "On Tyranny" by Timothy Snyder, you'll gain insights into the dangers of personality cults and the value of institutional norms, enabling you to form well-informed opinions on current political dynamics.
- Engage in local community dialogues to promote understanding and tolerance, which can counteract the acceptance of extremist elements. Participate in or initiate conversations in your neighborhood or online forums that encourage respectful exchange of views. This can help break down the "us vs. them" mentality and reduce the inclination to support fringe elements out of opposition to another group.
- Develop a personal pol ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
