Maybe that sounds like a lot of claptrap to you, and not that long ago I would have agreed. But not that long ago, I thought the other side had all kinds of crazy beliefs, this despite never meeting a living person who believed them. According to the studies, that’s not uncommon. It’s actually pervasive. We’re terrible at knowing what others think. And we’re equally bad at giving them the benefit of the doubt for it.

To wit: in my discussions with people on both sides of the aisle, I try to make the point that the vast majority of the other side is more moderate than cable news, podcasters, and talk radio would have them believe. More than once, the person I was speaking with said, “Yeah, you’re probably right,” thought a few seconds, then added, “But there are people who believe [insert most extreme thinking of the other side here].” I’ve been as guilty of this as anyone, and I regret it. Because if my argument is that the 5-10% fringe of the opposing party negates that party’s best reasoning, then by honest extension, the 5-10% fringe of my party ought to negate my party’s best reasoning. I don’t want to be on the hook for those people. Nor should I be. I don’t care if that 5-10% is yelling on TV every day, which is where you’ll find them. That doesn’t make them representative of the 90-95%. (A study in the link addresses how we fall into the trap of believing it does.)

So, with all that said, please read today’s link, share it, discuss it. And when you need to find it again, it will be in The Top 10 section where it belongs.

P.S. Yesterday, I received my first pledge. I don’t know if the donor would like to be mentioned by name, so he’ll remain anonymous, but I do want to say how much I appreciate his generosity. His donation covered the cost of moving One Daily Link over to Substack. Equally important, it is an incredible motivation to keep at the site and do the best job I can. Thank you. You’ve made my week.

THE DAILY LINK

Share One Daily Link

Memorial Day is the only day I don’t have to search for a column. I know exactly where the one I want is, what it says, and how impactful can be. This is the only piece I link to yearly because it’s far and away the best I’ve read in my years of doing this (no small feat) and because it’s the perfect representation of this site’s message. I hope you enjoy it, share it, and revisit it often.

Happy Memorial Day!

Today is the second anniversary of the January 6 insurrection. I didn't use that term for some time, preferring to call the day's events a riot until evidence beyond Donald Trump's rhetoric came to light. Once it did, I was much more comfortable with "insurrection." What I remained uncomfortable with was the argument that law enforcement's response on that day was lacking, as if their shortcomings might absolve Trump in some way. So today's link is a learning experience for me, a reminder that this website isn't about posting what's comfortable. It's about posting what's informed. Donell Harvin's column in Politico is certainly that.

As his bio notes, Harvin is a homeland security expert. He was also at the center of the city of Washington D.C.'s intelligence apparatus on January 6th. As such, he had a front row seat to the day's security breakdowns. Those looking to discount Harvin should note he testified before the January 6 Committee three times on what he saw leading up to the sixth as well as his recommendations moving forward. As for what he saw, Harvin says evidence of an attack was so persuasive he coordinated a call with all the state and local intelligence fusion centers across the country, something never before done. Yet his warnings went unheeded and received little notice in the committee's final report. As for his recommendations, Harvin says they've received little attention as well.

While the committee deservedly lays responsibility for January 6th at Trump's feet, it does the nation a disservice by papering over the day's security failures. Investigating law enforcement's actions doesn't exonerate Trump, just as investigating Trump shouldn't exonerate law enforcement. That doesn't mean the two share equal blame for what happened. It does mean, if the failures are ignored, January 6th could happen again.

THE DAILY LINK

I don't know how to describe today's column other than to say it is one of the best, most significant pieces I've read since I began One Daily Link. The reasons for this are many, but I'll limit myself here to two.

The first involves a short introduction to the column written by the publishing website's founder. In her characteristically gracious and thoughtful way, the founder acknowledges her disagreements with the columnist. Yet it is because of these disagreements -- not despite them -- that she's promoting the column. And as I said above, the column is remarkable. It's not some half-baked nonsense the founder has happily served up for readers to pick apart in the comments. She wants the piece to lead to conversations and knows it could lead to changed minds. Her willingness to post it anyway speaks to an intellectual honesty unheard of in certain spheres today.

The second reason for the column's brilliance is its nuance. I can't remember the last time a writer so deftly staked out his position while readily acknowledging the gray areas inconvenient to his case. It's another instance of that oh-so-rare intellectual honesty in which a person can make his argument while conceding it isn't ironclad. Because no political argument is ironclad. The writers and commentators able to admit that are the ones worth listening to. We need more of them, but I'm not complaining. I'll happily take the ones we have, especially when they write like this. This is commentary with the potential to change not just our minds, but our discourse. Please share it.

I created One Daily Link with two goals in mind. The first was to elevate calm discourse, the second to provide honest accounts of each party's priorities. The two tend to go hand in hand but, occasionally, they stand at odds. Take this week, for instance. Democrats are, put mildly, dismayed by the Freedom Caucus's newfound prominence in Congress. Their concerns aren't unfounded -- certain caucus members have said and done truly appalling things -- yet it's still unclear how much influence these members will actually yield. Balancing what we know with what we expect is tricky business; and while it's always tempting to make predictions, sometimes we just shouldn't bother. That's the crux of today's link, written by Stuart Rothenberg.

In his terrific column, Rothenberg opens with Democrats' take on House Republicans' past week -- the right is disorganized and destined for failure. Then, as quickly as he introduces the narrative, he dismisses it. Why? Because tough as last week was, no one knows what next week will bring, or the week after, or the week after that. While parties try to dictate the issues of the day, larger concerns beyond their control -- inflation, mass shootings, foreign conflicts -- are bound to crop up. How Republicans confront these unforeseen problems will influence voters' opinions far more than how long they took to elect a speaker. That's not to say Rothenberg doesn't have reservations about the current House majority. Again, though, he doesn't know what the prevailing issues will be a year from now. His take might strike some as maddeningly inconclusive, but it strikes me as more honest than predicting unqualified success or unmitigated disaster without knowing what lies ahead. In such polarized times, it's easy to forget "I don't know" is a perfectly appropriate answer. Sometimes it's the only answer. My hat's off to Rothenberg for reminding me of that.

THE DAILY LINK

As far as opinion pages go, The Hill's might be the best. The diversity of opinion and depth of thought is impressive to say the least. Sometimes when searching for links, I force myself not to look at The Hill because I don't want to feature its columns five days in a row. Other times, it's not worth the struggle. This is one of those times.

Former DoD official Dov S. Zakheim has written a terrific piece on President Biden's efforts in the Middle East since the Hamas attacks. Based on his past columns, some of which we've featured, it's safe to say Zakheim is no great booster of the president. And yet he feels compelled to give credit where he believes credit is due. It's an admirable sentiment, one we could use more of. Thankfully, The Hill is here to provide it.

THE DAILY LINK

Now that we're in the new year, it would be appropriate for all the doom and gloom pundits to revisit their 2023 predictions and reflect on what they got wrong. They're not going to do that, of course, because reflection is the first step to accountability, and no one gets into the pundit game to say sorry. There are thoughtful individuals, however, who are humble and honest enough to reevaluate old assumptions based on new evidence. For obvious reasons, these are the people worth listening to.

Today's columnist gives his 2023 predictions a passing grade. Some might roll their eyes at that, but look at the examples he lists as getting right (giving a leader of the other party the benefit of the doubt) and wrong (thinking his own party's policy on a matter would work). The man isn't an ideologue. He has his political priorities but, to refashion a quote from his piece, he doesn't "get trapped in echo chambers, where opponents get caricatured, and black-and-white analyses drown out exploration of the political grays." We owe it to ourselves to find more people like this. To forego the loud know-it-alls for the thoughtful want-to-know-mores. If ever there were a time to do it, it's now.

Happy New Year!

THE DAILY LINK

In his Meet the Press interview on Sunday, Donald Trump made some comments on abortion that raised the eyebrows of pro-life activists. After happily taking credit for Roe v. Wade's reversal, the former president is now chastising those advocating six-week abortion bans that sometimes include no exceptions. His thinking is the bans and others like it are a political loser for Republicans, and he's not necessarily wrong. They've failed in every state referendum in which they've appeared. They almost certainly cost the party seats in the mid-terms. And they most definitely cost the party a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat, which shifted the balance of the court to Democrats in that swing state. 

With all that lead-in, one might assume today's chosen column preaches moderation on abortion as well. It does not. Today's piece is one in which the author argues for pro-life principles over political expedience, and does so with a great deal of restraint and respect. For a topic as emotionally fraught as abortion, that is no small feat. For this reason, if for no other (and there are other reasons), it deserves an audience. As I said yesterday, this site is not an endorsement of policy. It's an endorsement of tone. Patrick T. Brown's column -- today's featured piece -- is a study in the art of respectful disagreement. I hope you agree... or disagree respectfully.

THE DAILY LINK

When classified documents were removed from Donald Trump's possession at Mar-a-Lago, there was a great deal of alarm that the nation's secrets could be treated so cavalierly. While the consternation continued after classified documents were found in President Biden's residence and former offices, the line entered the discussion that government intel is often over-classified. Now that top secret documents have been found in former Vice President Mike Pence's Indiana home, that line has taken on a life of its own.

Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg wants to put an end to that. We feature Rosenberg's columns frequently -- anytime he writes one, really. That's because he has extensive experience with the issues of the day unlike some commentators (Tucker Carlson and Joy Reid spring to mind for some unknowable reason), and he applies his principles evenly to both political parties unlike other commentators (Chris Hayes and Laura Ingraham spring to mind for other unknowable reasons). Rosenberg brings each of these qualities to bear in his terrific analysis of document classification. Summarizing his points would only dilute them, which we don't wish to do. We do, however, wish to remark on how refreshing it is to have an actual expert's take on events. Where even more commentators (Hannity, O'Donnell, Gutfeld, Maddow) seek to weaponize issues, Rosenberg's goal is to illuminate them. While we'd never typically encourage a person to watch any of the personalities listed above, we would challenge you tonight to seek out the ones you see yourself agreeing with most. Compare their analysis to Rosenberg's and ask yourself how constructive it really was. Did they appeal to reason or emotion? Did they offer clarity or talking points? Do you already know the answers without watching? 

If we're going to engage in meaningful discussions, we need to stop consuming frivolous commentary. We need to seek out experts, not showmen, to help us form our opinions. Rosenberg's column -- fair-minded, well-informed, deeply nuanced -- is definitive proof why.

THE DAILY LINK

Prominent commentators in each political party insist on portraying the entirety of their opposition as some dastardly combination of Bond villains and lemmings. The opposing party's leaders want to destroy the country, they tell us, while its voters are too uninformed/unthinking to realize it. It's an argument made by both sides for so long it's taken for granted.

With the presidential election matchup likely to solidify in the coming days, it's also an argument we're likely to hear daily, nightly, and in our sleep the next ten months. That's why today's column is so important. It's an honest discussion with several voters who are weighing their options. They are thoughtful, informed, three-dimensional individuals who want to make the country better for themselves and others. They reflect the near totality of voters I know from each party. My guess is they reflect the near totality of voters you know from each party. So, as the year unfolds and our punditry retreats to its caricatures, I will think of the people I know (rather than the ones I'm selectively told about) to remember the actual truth of the American voter: they are kind, they are thinking, they are invested in a better future for the country.