Over the last few weeks, I have had the privilege of interviewing authors who have written about our polarized country. David French writes about Divided We Fall. Justin Giboney writes about civic engagement in Compassion & Conviction. Both of them talked about a study known as the Hidden Tribes of America, that I wrote about two years ago.

The study broke Americans into seven tribes: Progressive Activists, Traditional Liberals, Passive Liberals, Politically Disengaged, Moderates, Traditional Conservatives, and Devoted Conservatives. They found that the smallest and most extreme tribes (Progressives Activists and Devoted Conservatives) accounted for a total of 14 percent of Americans. Because of their involvement in time and money, they often frame the issues for the majority of us. That would be the remaining 86 percent of us.

I noticed in these book interviews that the middle group (what the researchers called the “Exhausted Majority”) was only 67 percent. Now, I’m no math major, but 100 minus 14 is 86 not 67. That’s when I went back to the study.

The researchers consider only consider Traditional Liberals part of the Exhausted Majority but not Traditional Conservatives. The researcher’s justification follows three words that begin with the letter F. They are fed up with polarization. They are forgotten in the public discourse. And they are flexible in their views. Do you notice the bias?

Traditional conservatives are certainly fed up with polarization and certainly feel forgotten by the mainstream media and the political elite. But are they any less flexible that liberals on topics like abortion or other hot button issues?

The fair way to represent this would be to include both liberals and conservatives in the exhausted majority for a total of 86 percent or to eliminate both groups for a total of 75 percent. Either way you can see the extremes are driving the political debate for the rest of us.

Now that the state legislatures are back in session, one of the more significant functions this year will be reapportionment. After the decennial census is completed, the states must reapportion the congressional districts. This is necessary for two reasons. First, the populations within states change. Second, the population of states vary because of migration from one state to another.

Reapportionment will affect two issues. The allocation of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives is done by population within a state. Many states will lose a one or more seats, while others will gain one or more seats. This will also impact the Electoral College. The number of electors is based on the number of members of Congress.

According to an unofficial Census Bureau estimate, many of the blue states will lose members of the House of Representatives. For example, New York could lose one or two congressional seats, depending on which estimate is used. It would lose one seat if the April 1 population estimate is used. It could lose two seats if the July 1 estimate is used. Other states that will lose a congressional representatives are California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

Before I list the states that will pick up a congressional seat, we should mention that this is the first time in its history that California will lose a seat. Also consider that New York was the most populous state in the union until 1964. It is now fourth and losing population nearly every day.

The biggest winner in all of this is Texas that will gain three additional seats. Florida will gain two. Other states to gain a seat are Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Oregon. And a large number of the state legislatures doing reapportionment are controlled by Republicans, so I predict that more Republicans will be serving in Congress in the future.

Sometimes the verse in Jeremiah 29:11 has been misapplied since it originally was directed at the Jews in the Old Testament. It says, “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” A number of years ago, Chuck Bentley with Crown Financial Ministries illustrated that if we look at the previous verses we find a blueprint of “Four Steps to End Poverty.”

Step one can be found in verse 5 that admonishes the Jews to “build a house and settle down” and to “plant a garden and eat from your own garden.” Chuck says this teaches that we are to take responsibility for our own welfare.

Step two in verse 6 says they were to “marry and have sons and daughters” and that they were to “increase not decrease.” We should have a growing family. What a contrast this is to the falling birthrates in the richest nations of the world.

Step three is found in verse 7 that says, “Seek the peace and prosperity into the city.” Prosperity is dependent upon the peace in our local community. Chuck says that, “We are to build enterprises that will assist others in the achievement of their goals and objectives.”

Step four talks about the danger of false views and false theology. It can be found in verses 8 and 9 that warn, “Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you.” The problem with some attempts to alleviate poverty is that they fail to acknowledge the spiritual condition of the people. What we believe about God impacts our view of marriage, finance, children, education, government, and religion.

Reducing and even ending poverty in our communities and the world will only be successful if we follow God’s plan. Chuck Bentley provides a clear outline from God’s Word of what we can do to end poverty.

America is a house divided. That is the central message of the book by David French, Divided We Fall. His book was selected by World magazine as its book of the year, and I had him on my radio program recently to talk about the polarization in America.

He believes it is time for us to understand that “the continued unity of the United State of America cannot be guaranteed.” He persuasively argues there is not a single “cultural, religious, political, or social force that is pulling Americans together more than it is pushing us apart.”

One reason for the division and polarization is geographical. More and more Americans are living in what has been called “landslide counties.” Those are counties in this country where one presidential candidate wins by at least twenty points. Back in 1980, there were about 400 of these landslide countries. Today there are more than three times as many.

Another factor is the phenomenon called “negative polarization.” What this means in the political sphere is that a person belongs to a political party not so much because they like their own party but because they fear the other party.

When he speaks, he often tells his audience that if they can remember one thing it is the principle from an obscure academic paper by a University of Chicago law professor. The daunting title is “The Law of Group Polarization.” You can summarize it by simply saying, “When people of like mind gather, they tend to become more extreme.” When everyone in your group or in your tribe agrees with you, you become more convinced of your view and have less appreciation for the opposite view.

David French also provides solutions, but I think we must take the first step to healing by recognizing that this country is truly a house divided.

Bryan Walsh writes about the future for Axios. Before that he was a correspondent with Time magazine. He isn’t necessarily looking at issues from a Christian perspective, even though his most recent book has the title, End Times. He recently wrote about the death spiral of public life.

While he acknowledges that technology has kept many people working, fed, and entertained at home, it has forced a retreat from public life that will have what he predicts will be “toxic ramifications.” As I have documented in previous commentaries, the slight benefit of the lockdowns is overshadowed by the tremendous cost in terms of social, economic, and educational devastation. As a Christian, I would also add that keeping believers from meeting together in church have also had negative consequences.

The impact on cities could be significant. One recent report that he cites found the three to four times more people could end up working remotely than before the pandemic. This would have “a profound impact on urban economies, transportation, and consumer spending.” Consider that nearly 14 percent of the office space in Midtown Manhattan is vacant.

Both public schools and public transportation seem headed for a “death spiral.” Frustrated parents withdraw their kids from school, thus affecting funding which is based on a per-student basis. Public transportation has been crippled with declining ridership as more and more people decide to work remotely. And funding is declining because of plunging state and local government revenue.

As technology improves, so will the benefits of staying at home. You can work when you want, watch what you want, and eat what you want without leaving your home. All of this will certainly decrease our sense of community.

Should the federal government forgive college debt? That simple answer is no, but I want to explore the broader question of why this debate has even been taking place.

Let’s consider the situation. A student heads off the college and borrows money in order to receive a college degree. We should assume that he or she is smart enough to understand the conditions of the loan. We are talking about students smart enough to go to a university.

But then students begin to complain about having to pay back their college debt. I recently read about Michelle Obama complaining about having to pay back her the loan she received in order to attend Princeton. Like other students at an Ivy League university, she received a discount on her tuition and then qualified for a student loan at a subsidized rate with easy repayment terms.

I would think she (and other Ivy League students) would be grateful for getting such a good education with a low interest loan. But these reactions illustrate how even a college education has become an entitlement.

In case you haven’t figured it out, college debt forgiveness will benefit the rich and the middle class the most. In fact, students who attended the most prestigious institutions will likely be the greater beneficiaries.

This brings us to questions very few seem to be asking. Why should someone who never went to college be asked to pay taxes that will forgive the college loans of someone else? Why should someone (like me) who went to multiple colleges took out loans and dutifully paid them off now have to pay taxes to forgive the college loans of others who have not paid them off?

These are very important questions. But I suspect that such questions won’t be allowed to be asked when the college debt debate begins later this year.

The many myths surrounding the slogan “defund the police” need to be addressed. That is why I was encouraged to read a thoughtful critique from a progressive who lives in Seattle, but also works for law enforcement. Christopher Young has been a big-city cop for more than a quarter century and brings some common sense to the debate about the police.

The first myth he tackles is the argument that “police are killing large numbers of civilians.” Criminal justice experts I have quoted in previous commentaries have proven this is not true. He cites statistics from New York City to prove his point, but you can also use national crime statistics as well.

His second myth is the naïve belief that “the anti-cop movement is largely peaceful.” He likens the movement to the Batman villain Two-Face. The protests in the daytime were mostly examples of lawful free speech. The dynamic changed dramatically at night as riots broke out. He reminds us that the mainstream media adopted what he called “the comically false peaceful-protest narrative” which was obviously untrue.

A third myth is that “abolishing police wouldn’t lead to lawlessness.” As a police officer he saw first-hand Seattle’s experiment with the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (known as CHAZ). Police weren’t allowed in the “occupied” protest zone for weeks. They saw the lawlessness that broke out when police could not be on patrol.

A final myth is that the “police are militarized.” As a former soldier, he knows that it was like to ride in an armored vehicle. Today, SWAT team members use armored vehicles and armored clothing in order to avoid using deadly force, not commit it. A SWAT team member wearing protection is likely to wait longer before using force.

I agree with this police officer’s conclusion that the defund the police arguments are either wildly exaggerated or just plain false.

Joe Biden has made it clear how important he thinks climate change is to this country. He talks about a “climate crisis” and wants to put John Kerry in a position defined as the “climate czar.” His other nominees for the Department of Interior and EPA also show his belief that climate change is what he calls as “an existential threat of our time.”

His fellow Democrats agree with him. An NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll a few months ago asked voters, “Which one of the following issues is most important to you?” For Democrats climate change ranked first, with coronavirus second. By contrast, Republicans ranked the economy first, and climate change did not even register with those polled.

The examples used to argue that we are facing a climate crisis don’t stand up the empirical evidence, as Rich Lowry documents in a recent column. Flooding in the Midwest is supposedly an artifact of climate change. But Bjorn Lomborg cites a UN study that questions whether flooding is getting more or less frequent. Biden also blamed drought in the Midwest, while the federal government’s National Climate Assessment concluded that “droughts has decreased over much of the continental United States.”

Biden argues that California wildfires have been caused by warming temperatures, which is probably a contributing factor. But Lomborg also noted that land burning around the globe has fallen sharply since the 19th century.

Biden cited Hurricane Laura, the storm that hit Louisiana as another example of climate-driven extreme weather. There does seem to be more storm activity in the Atlantic, but Lomborg writes that this is not necessarily due to climate change.

So many of the examples cited cannot be tied to climate change, much less the climate crisis Joe Biden wants all us to fear.