Democrat Host Reflects on Party's Shift from Moderate to Far Left

Election night looms less than two months away. As a Democrat who co-hosts Fox News Channel's popular program "The Five," I hope our party secures major wins across the nation. Recent polling suggests we might flip the House and perhaps even the Senate. Yet, history has taught me to hold back celebration until votes are counted and calls are made.

Sometimes I am not a fan of my home team. The Democrats have gone too far on occasion. They preach so intensely at the rest of us that members feel excluded from their own party. My disagreement with far-left Twitch streamer Hasan Piker and his views on Marxism and China is absolute, as I stated recently. Sometimes, looking back with hindsight allows us to see things differently than we did in the moment.

Two specific moments stand out during this chaotic political era over the last six years when my own beliefs shifted dramatically. The first involved COVID-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for nearly forty years before retiring in 2022. He did a lot of good for the country, but mask mandates went too far and lasted too long. When I interviewed my conservative friend Greg Gutfeld on my podcast "Raging Moderates," I understood his frustration with the government telling people what to do instead of leaving them alone.

The second moment dates back to 2019, a time that felt blissful compared to the chaos about to arrive. Actor Jussie Smollett lied about being the victim of a hate crime in Chicago. I defended him despite early skepticism regarding his story. In the end, my bias clouded my judgment completely. We must learn to accept when we are wrong. Without that acceptance, deeper conversations remain impossible and connections with loved ones cannot strengthen.

That realization is why I wrote my new book titled "I Disagree." There is surprising data and science behind the art of conversation. Understanding this process helps unlock better debates and builds meaningful relationships. Consider the glazed look someone gets when you present facts contradicting their position. It does not mean they are stupid or stubborn, unless that happens to be true. Their brain protects them from the psychological pain of having their worldview challenged.

First, we sort through what evidence we consider valid. Then we screen out anything threatening our existing beliefs. Scientists call this motivated reasoning. Eventually it leads sociologists to refer to as cognitive armor. This acts as a defense system that pre-filters reality for us. The most unsettling part is that this process happens largely without our conscious control. We do not decide to ignore contradictory evidence on purpose. Our brains handle the filtering automatically and efficiently.

If we attempt to change our minds, the experience actually causes physical pain. Neuroscientists at the University of Southern California discovered something startling. When they fed statements challenging beliefs to high-intensity voters, brain regions responsible for processing physical pain lit up like Times Square. Trying to find real news in a messy social media feed is exhausting enough without adding deepfakes and misinformation into the mix.

Just as our bodies filter out foreign invaders, our brains also filter information to protect us from constant anxiety. The film Eddington does more than just tell a story about a pandemic; it captures how the two Americas became so anxious over COVID that we stopped listening to one another. Director Ari Aster set his 2025 movie in New Mexico to examine a small-town election for mayor. In this plot, the sheriff played by Joaquin Phoenix refuses to wear a mask while the incumbent portrayed by Pedro Pascal tries to enforce a legal mandate during the height of the virus outbreak.

Not everyone loved the film because the last act veered too far off course for some viewers. What really worked in Eddington is how it explores the way communities fracture along ideological lines and how cynicism infects our most basic civic functions. The sheriff does not merely disagree with mask mandates; he holds a fundamental skepticism about institutional authority itself. As a result, the citizens of this regular American town get hopelessly divided and eventually devolve into violence.

The parallel to our lived experiences is exaggerated since it is a movie after all, but the message remains clear: our allegiances to one another are not rock solid. Once we experience a breakdown in our relationships, it becomes hard to put things back together again. Greg convinced me to watch the film before he appeared on Raging Moderates and made the case for the skeptics. He argued that everybody has a feeling after going through that period where they cannot believe people let them down so badly.

I could not believe I stood six feet apart from people or washed my Amazon packages until now. Everyone keeps thinking this could never happen again, but we do not know what else might come down the pike. The pressure to wear masks feels very similar to the pressure regarding pronouns because you want someone just to leave you alone without needing constant acknowledgment. There were people compelling others to do things that created a resistance inside you saying forget it and they are not telling me what to say.

If I am in a hospital then yes, I will put on a mask but if I am outside in New Mexico on a desolate street I am not going to do it at all. When somebody wants to compel you to do something your instinct is to resist which ends up with everything becoming A versus B choices like mask or no mask. Really though we should just leave each other alone without any argument over these specific issues. Do I think masking and pronouns are comparable because they force similar reactions from people despite their differences? No not really but as we talked about the differences in our experiences our realities stood side by side clearly.

Greg shared a view held by millions that enforced masking was an intolerable infringement on his rights and quality of life. My view was shaped by caring for a dying parent and the fear that COVID would take him before cancer set in. I felt the mandate was worth potential overreach if it meant my father would live longer instead of succumbing to the disease. Although the danger of COVID has receded, that debate continues with questions about whether mandates were a necessary evil or just pure evil. Remarkably I have not seen much of an in-between position anywhere.

So how do we navigate this cognitive minefield without getting lost in our own biases? It has to start with confronting them directly and honestly. I try not to forget what happened when Jussie Smollett the Black and gay actor who starred in the show Empire reported being the victim of a hate crime in Chicago back in 2019. This event serves as a test case for how we handle false narratives and public outrage today.

A video showed two masked men in MAGA hats pouring bleach on Smollett while hurling racist and homophobic insults. They allegedly slipped a noose around his neck before fleeing the scene. The footage spread quickly online. When I went on air, I joined the public anger by noting that a person of color was more likely to be targeted by hate crimes than anyone else. But then the story shifted dramatically. The men who supposedly attacked Smollett later admitted the entire event was a hoax.

Smollett eventually faced claims he staged the incident and was charged with disorderly conduct. Those initial charges were dropped after he finished community service and forfeited bail. He was re-indicted in 2020, convicted in 2021, and sentenced to jail time in 2022. He served only six days before release. The Illinois Supreme Court later reversed the conviction. They ruled that prosecuting him again violated double jeopardy protections.

Looking back, there were plenty of warning signs. The attack supposedly happened at two a.m. during a polar vortex in Chicago. That was not prime time for anyone to be wandering around alone. The attackers who allegedly recognized Smollett from Empire also carried bleach and a noose. Who does that? Did my liberal bias cloud my coverage? No doubt. Harris Faulkner, host of "The Faulkner Focus" and co-host of "Outnumbered," pointed out this issue when I appeared on her show. She said we must look at the facts and keep an open heart if we want to move forward. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Now I seek smart people who will disagree with me. I hope they do the same for me. Greg once described our dynamic using a gym analogy. He said lifting weights requires resistance. Imagine going to the gym and finding no weights at all. That is every show without somebody holding a different opinion. I want to see if my ideas can lift weights. When you are in there, you force me to work out. You become kind of my muse. If we were playing basketball, you throw elbows. And that is just the way you play.

The real power lies in knowing the truth while accepting that people resist it. Only then do we have a chance at a shared reality. This excerpt comes from "I DISAGREE: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends" by Jessica Tarlov. The new book serves as a guide for staying true to your values and finding common ground across political divides. It is available now at Barnes & Noble and all major booksellers.