Delve Deeper

Understanding public discourse

Check out this explanation of the Overton Window; then learn about it’s origins and flaws


Read More

From Broad + Liberty

“Broad + Liberty strives to improve our politics by improving our civic dialogue, beginning with the local. We will provoke thought, challenge ideological assumptions, and offer a perspective on the issues that matter most unlike any other outlet in the region. There are many different viewpoints out there, and people you disagree with aren’t the enemy. Expect to be challenged. Engage where you can. And keep in mind that you could be wrong. Above all, respect the universal dignity of all people.”

Read more from Albert Eisenberg here.


To this story in CitizenCast

Prefer the audio version of this story?
CitizenCast hears you

And go here for more audio articles from CitizenCast

The Progressive vs. Bigot Conundrum

A political consultant and Broad + Liberty co-founder warns that the state of our public discourse comforts the woke—but stifles solutions

The Progressive vs. Bigot Conundrum

A political consultant and Broad + Liberty co-founder warns that the state of our public discourse comforts the woke—but stifles solutions

Custom HaloA recent CATO Institute poll confirms what is anecdotally understood by approximately every breathing soul in the universe: In newsfeeds and news outlets, America’s public discourse—increasingly digitized, and now exclusively so thanks to a global pandemic—has veered sharply to the left.

A majority of Americans, and a vast majority of those who self-identify as moderate, conservative or “strong conservative,” agree with the statement that the present political climate “prevents me from saying things I believe in because others might find them offensive.”

Staunch liberals stand out as only group who feels they can share their political opinions graph

Of the political groups, only a majority of self-described “strong liberals” feel comfortable sharing their viewpoints—a victory for the far left, but not for public discourse.

Some say: Good, anybody to the right of far left is a bigot anyway.

This response arises from what Federalist writer Emily Jashinsky has termed the “progressive vs. bigot” binary: a justification and zeal in shutting non-woke voices down, and a crucial assumption that people who do not share the same political ambitions and stances as the far left also do not share a common humanity or good intentions.

This assumption is rampant throughout our contemporary discourse, and is drilled into our heads on social media, specifically. Oppose abortion rights? You are anti-woman. Oppose illegal immigration? You’re anti-immigrant. Believe that there is some biological basis for gender, and that it’s not just a “construct”? Anti-trans or homophobe. Support good police and don’t believe that all cops are bastards (ACAB)? Racist, racist, racist.

The “expanded definitions” of white supremacy, racism, misogyny, homophobia and more, writes Jashinsky, have been “brewing for decades in academia, which has now exported enough graduates into the professional world” to reach critical mass. Armed with these expanded definitions, these very college grads—the most privileged people in our society, it should be noted—are shutting down debate around key subjects.

This article is part of a content partnership with

Do SomethingOn the most important issues of the day, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, the “Overton Window” —the range of what is considered publicly acceptable discourse—has narrowed such that the only distinction is: Trotsky or Stalin? Dismantle the system or burn it down? While this may be most comforting for the group that is controlling the debate, it does no service to those around whom the debate rages—often “oppressed minorities” whose perceived victimhood is the raison d’être of the Woke Left.

And this debate has narrowed, not coincidentally, just as things are getting worse for the people and lives being debated.

As America experiences a “Great Awokening” on racial issues, some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Philadelphia have become shooting galleries, with homicides up double digits in 2020 over 2019, itself a bloody year. That this is happening under the noses of Mayor Jim Kenney and District Attorney Larry Krasner, a career criminal defense attorney, is no coincidence.

Despite the political inconvenience of this surge in murders under progressive law enforcement, we must pay attention and acknowledge it if we care about Black lives.

This is the core of what I wish to defend: the need for robust debate, starting with the acknowledgment of reality (murders, primarily visited upon lower income Black victims, are hitting historic rates in Philadelphia) and the need to discuss why this is happening from a variety of perspectives.

If your only solution is “dismantle the police,” you are doing a disservice to the people dying in our streets.

A similar phenomenon, though less visceral, concerns the “debate” around schooling as we approach an unprecedented academic year. The range of accepted opinions seems to be exactly one: Do not force teachers back into classrooms, because they will die teaching your kids.

Clearly, this is a risk that we need to take seriously; but what about the risk to students, especially younger students, especially students with more specific educational needs, and exceptionally students who do not come from stable family backgrounds, that the next year(s) living with the coronavirus will equate to no learning at all—no academics, no intellectual or social development, just a widening gyre of listlessness from which they will never climb out?

Virtual learning may work in wealthier school districts with wealthier families, but it will be a farce in Philadelphia, and the refusal to consider in-person learning for Philly’s kids will cause its own crises in the near and long term.

Read MoreThe lived reality for many of the people the Left claims to represent is actually getting worse during our summer of intense unrest, with already-sparse businesses looted and boarded up, bullets flying in forgotten neighborhoods across the city, and a farcical “e-learning” experiment coming around the bend for scores of children who didn’t have it easy before.

Anybody looking to shut down well-intentioned dissent around these very trends is more interested in affirming their own sense of the world than in helping those they claim to be serving.

Shutting down critics of our new status quo may make it easier for those on the far left to control the debate. But reality cries out nonetheless, and the voices and ideas of moderates and conservatives are needed if society is to serve more than just the Woke fringe and its allies.

Albert Eisenberg is a Philadelphia-based political consultant and a co-founder of Broad + Liberty. Follow him on Twitter at @albydelphia. This is part of a series of articles running on both The Citizen and Broad + Liberty.

Photo by Kristina Flour / Unsplash

The Philadelphia Citizen will only publish thoughtful, civil comments. If your post is offensive, not only will we not publish it, we'll laugh at you while hitting delete.

Be a Citizen Editor

Suggest a Story

Advertising Terms

We do not accept political ads, issue advocacy ads, ads containing expletives, ads featuring photos of children without documented right of use, ads paid for by PACs, and other content deemed to be partisan or misaligned with our mission. The Philadelphia Citizen is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization and all affiliate content will be nonpartisan in nature. Advertisements are approved fully at The Citizen's discretion. Advertisements and sponsorships have different tax-deductible eligibility. For questions or clarification on these conditions, please contact Director of Sales & Philanthropy Kristin Long at [email protected] or call (609)-602-0145.