Philosophy has long grappled with the tension between ideology and evidence, but this question isn’t esoteric; it manifests in our everyday politics.

Drawing on the language of John Neville Keynes and the classical philosophy frameworks of David Hume’s ought-is dilemma, I present an alternative model for understanding Democrats' shortcomings over the past decade: it is not the fault of populism or an ignorant electorate, but rather an epistemological misalignment among Democrats, Republicans, and an electorate concerned with normative issues.

As Keynes describes, normativity refers to statements/arguments that rely on ethos, ideology, or ‘what ought to be’; they are evaluative claims. Statements of positivity are ‘what is’ empirical and statistical; they are descriptive. Morals are at the forefront of normative claims, whereas statements of positivity are implicit. Hume's law has an easy workaround to this problem: shared or explicitly articulated normative frameworks.

However, this is reality, and that is rarely possible under the guillotine of strict partisanship; all we can do is respond in kind. Normative statements with normative reactions, and positivity with positivity - no amount of data will convince an ideologue. But this is not a mutually exclusive relationship.

Normativity is a gradient, with both parties employing tactics at different levels.Along this scale, Republicans operate at the peak of normative epistemic levels. From MAGA to the ideological hijacking of government agencies, including the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Trump-aligned actors continue to develop policy principles on “the way things should be,” rather than prioritizing empiricism in decision-making. In the crusade against liberalism, the Trump cabinet selectively deploys pseudo-positive evidence to reinforce their positions, but it does not appear to be what drives policy.

One such example of subordinate positivity is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, who publicly used faulty medical citations to strengthen his unique positions on vaccines. In an April 2025 press conference, RFK Jr. routinely misinterpreted a 2023 CDC study stating that one in 25 people with autism has “severe limitations”. RFK Jr. falsely claimed that this study revealed that “25% of children with autism are non-verbal.” This misinterpretation isn’t just a sloppy citation, but an indication of a broader epistemic structure in which empirical claims are utilized to reinforce preexisting normative commitments.

This pattern emerges yet again in the administration-authorized “Make America Healthy Again” report. In a “breakthrough” study, the Trump administration haphazardly generated a literature review that was, in theory, aimed to identify the causal factors, such as vaccines, leading to chronic diseases in the United States, including autism. Later investigations found that generative artificial intelligence fabricated several studies, and that a multitude of legitimate citations were misinterpretations of evidence. These failures, while startling, did not diminish the report's political function, such as legitimizing RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine agenda, because its persuasive force never originated in its positivist merit to begin with. Rather, these appeals to science were a rhetorical exercise aimed at reinforcing an already normative position - his point doesn’t need science.

These cases do not suggest that Republican persuasion needs empirical support; rather, they suggest that it succeeds independently of empiricism. Within this epistemic boundary, empirical claims are not the foundation of beliefs and ideology, but can selectively support or deny arguments without diminishing their position. When two opposed political actors operate with different bases of knowledge (ideological vs. empirical), their persuasive capacity is limited not by their legitimacy or the accuracy of evidence, but rather by the alignment of their rebuttals. In a normative and positive framework, actual counterarguments seldom address the persuasive substance of the claims they contest.

This is where Democrats fail. As a party supposedly oriented toward equity, institutional reform, and historical redress, Democratic positions tend to rely systematically on positivity as an evaluative and persuasive tool to illuminate social problems that large portions of the electorate have yet to recognize intuitively. According to a Pew survey, 60% of respondents under 30 still claim that the Civil War was “about states' rights.” When we are still navigating such obvious discrepancies on issues that elicit an awareness of historical and institutional racism, progressives must rely on facts and statistics, not as a rhetorical preference, but to legitimize their point.

This tendency is also reflected institutionally. According to a 2025 study analyzing 25 years of policy and scientific data, published in Science, Democratic-controlled committees are 1.8 times more likely to cite scientific evidence in policy development than their Republican counterparts. In congressional committees that switch from Republican to Democratic control, subsequent committees cite, on average, over 196 additional sources compared to their predecessors. Left-wing think tanks are also five times as likely to cite scientific sources in policy documents, and only 5-6% of all of these citations get shared across the aisle.

What this study illuminates is more than just how we devise policy; rather, it shows a severe divergence in epistemic appeal. After all, over the past decade, Democrats have repeatedly struggled to translate factual legitimacy into durable political support, reflecting a failure to align with both the Republican Party’s narrative strategies and the broader electorate. Fortunately, this flaw is not fatal.

Zohran Mamdani’s decisive mayoral victory in New York is a master class in restructuring that underpins the Democrats' capacity to succeed within explicitly normative frameworks. Mamdani’s campaign patched a tear ignored by national Democrats; he addressed the concepts of justice and power on ideological grounds rather than through implicit appeals to equity. Mamdani wasn’t fighting Cuomo on income tax; he waged an explicit ideological war, and it worked.

Demonstrating this point, I turn to his victory speech on November 4, 2025. Mamdani used this moment to reclaim Democrats' position as the party of “the people,” framing his victory as a moment against shared injustice and hope as a tool for the collective rather than a motivation for individual success. Notably, what makes this speech work is what it doesn’t begin with: stats and policy. Instead, it opens with an invocation of Eugene Debs–“I can see the dawn of a better day for humanity”– marking a pivotal moral turning point. He goes on to say, “[i]n this moment of political darkness, New York will be the light,” casting all of New York as a collective agent in a universal moral struggle. These powerful remarks abandon the implicit normativity that has shackled Democratic persuasion and, rather, bring identity, moral character, and communalism to the fore as drivers of political ambition.

Some critics could argue that these differences are not epistemic but rather the products of other phenomena, such as populism or the remnant of the global trend toward authoritarianism. However, I think that political factors, such as populism (whatever that means), do not, by themselves, explain the inability of progressive movements to achieve decisive victories. Epistemic alignment, rather than ideological concessions or the disregard of evidence, offers a missing link between argumentation, purpose, and persuasion.

-Barclay Zislin

Upcoming UNMUTED Events

Tuesday, 1/26: An UNMUTED Interview: Law, Power, and Venezuela (link)

Wednesday, 2/4: An UNMUTED x NY Philosophy Club Dialogue: Social Media and Agency (link)

Wednesday, 2/11: An UNMUTED Salon: Accountability in Politics (link)

Check out all our events here

The events I’ve got my eye on in the next two weeks. Check them out!

🗓 🗓 Monday, January 26
•6:30 PM – Ambassador Series: Ibrahim Olabi
Subject: Syria, UN, Ambassador NYC
Where: Penn Club, 30 W 44th St, New York, NY 10036
Who: United Nations Association of New York
What: A members only event (but membership can be purchased…) with the new Syrian Ambassador to the UN. Will be a fascinating look into what the new Syrian regime wants to portray to the rest of the world

🗓 Tuesday, January 27
•6:30 PM – Politics & Policy: Building Strong Ties with the Mamdani Administration
Subject: Policy, Mamdani, NYC
Where: citizenM New York Times Square, 790 Eighth Avenue, NY, NY 10019
Who: Sequoia Baker
What: A meet and greet with members of the Mamdani administration - part show, part tell. Mamdani admin talks about their plans on various parts of government (including Trump, which I don’t really understand what that has to do with NYC), and gives people in the audience time to discuss their concerns or suggestions.

•6:30 PM – An UNMUTED Interview: Law, Power, and Venezuela
Subject: Venezuela, NY-12, International
Where: Jack Demsey’s, 36 W 33rd St, New York, NY 10001
Who: UNMUTED
What: ​Panel discussion and networking mixer focused on navigating the immigration journey as an African. “Hear from experienced voices, gain practical insights, and connect with others within the community.” Not a lot of context otherwise, but seems interesting and useful? Will probably feature immigration lawyers.

🗓 Wednesday, January 28
•6 PM – Safety and Security Summit with Rob Chadwick
Subject: National Security, Public Safety, Law and Order
Where: 122 E 83rd St, New York, NY 10028
Who: Metropolitan Republican Club
What: A discussion with former FBI exec Rob Chadwick, focused on Maduro, Portland, NYC crime, etc. Pretty standard Republican law and order mixed with international politics. Fancy place though! Worth a check.

•6:30 PM – Endangered Lawyers? Attorney Independence in DOJ
Subject: DOJ, Trump, Independence
Where: 42 West 44th Street, New York, NY
Who: New York Bar Association
What: If you know me, I don’t have the MOST sympathy for lawyers. They tend to get in the way of getting anything done, and are obsessed with process over results to a fault. That said, not having independent lawyers is probably bad! This talk will discuss.

🗓 Thursday, January 29
•6:30 PM – Trailblazers in Healthcare 2026
Subject: Comedy, Politics, Propriety
Where: 267 Fifth Avenue (at 29th Street), New York, NY 10016
Who: City & State NY
What: Annual recognition event honoring healthcare trailblazers whose leadership in government relations, advocacy, academia, business, and community impact is shaping the future of healthcare in New York and beyond. Includes welcoming remarks, keynote speakers, honoree presentations, and networking reception. If you’re interested - email [email protected] to see if you can get in!

🗓 Friday, January 30
•9:30 PM – Alternative Medicine: [UNREDACTED] 
Subject: Comedy, Politics, Healthcare
Where: 21A Clinton Street, New York, NY 10002
Who: Caveat NYC
What: A late-night live show about health, science, and culture and pushing against mainstream sentiment. Feels like this might be a bit….RFKy and anti-vaccine? Or not! I don’t know, but I’m….intrigued?

🗓 Saturday, January 31
•10 AM - Current Events in Government & Politics
Subject: Politics, Discussion, Library
Where: 8202 13th Avenue (@ 82nd Street), Brooklyn, NY 11228
Who: Brooklyn Public Library
What: I guess a weekly discussion group for adults focused on current events related to government and politics, offering civic dialogue, community engagement, and shared analysis of contemporary public affairs. The description is pretty barren and if I was making a bet on Kalshi I’d say this is for very liberal retirees.

🗓 Sunday, February 1
None I found interesting!

🗓 Monday, February 2
•6:00 PM – Make History: Creating an Equitable and an Affordable NYC
Subject: Urban Policy
Where: Medgar Evers College, CUNY
Who: Coalition for a Democratic and Just NYC
What: Public forum focused on policy ideas and civic strategies aimed at building a more equitable and affordable New York City. Mainly talk about the role of the Speaker, featuring Speaker Menin. These sort of events are new to me…is this new or am I crazy?.

•7:30 PM – The Death of the Normie Featuring Paul Gotterfried
Subject: Politics and Cultural Commentary
Where: Midtown Manhattan (Revealed after ticket purchase)
Who: New York Young Republican Club
What: Conversation with Paul Gottfried - who, according to Wikipeida is a “American paleoconservative political philosopher, historian, and writer”, for a candid conversation on the collapse of the political middle and the “death of the normie.” This is basically the reality I’m trying to reverse …and I would totally go if I was in town!

🗓 Tuesday, February 3
•6:30 PM - Paranoid Politics: How Fear Shaped American Democracy
Subject: Politics, Meta Discourse, Fear
Where: Location provided upon RSVP
Who: A lively, interactive discussion designed to make the big ideas of collective anxiety and democratic erosion accessible. Join Columbia Graduate and educator Sari Beth Rosenberg for a drink and discussion covering how paranoia continues to shape American Politics. I wish I could attend this, I’d pay for someone’s ticket for this to go and report back - text me, (978 302 5849)

🗓 Wednesday, February 4
•5:00 PM – How the Civil Rights Movement Shaped Disability Rights
Subject: Civil Rights and Social History
Where: Kimmel Center for University Life, Rooms 905-907
Who: New York University
What: Part of NYU’s 21st MLK week, this event explores the shared history between the Civil Rights Movement and the Disability Rights Movement.

•6:30 PM – Covering the Court: The Media and the First Amendment
Subject: Legal Theory
Where: The Robert H. Smith Auditorium at The New York Historical, 170 Central Park West, New York, NY 10024
Who: The New York Historical
What: A panel of journalists and legal experts, including Justin Elliot, Adam Liptak, Joanne Lipman, and Katie Fallow, explores how the U.S. Supreme Court is covered by the media and how First Amendment principles intersect with judicial transparency and civic understanding. This looks REALLY interesting. If we didn’t have an UNMUTED event that night, I’d be here.

•6:30 PM – An UNMUTED x NY Philosophy Club Dialogue: Social Media & Agency
Subject: UNMUTED
Where: Civic Hall, 124 East 14th Street, New York, NY 10003, situated i
Who: UNMUTED
What: The NY Philosphy Club and UNMUTED are teaming to provide a mixed format event - start with a small debate on whether we should regulate the algorithms in our platforms or trust human agency. Followed by small group discussions.

🗓 Thursday, February 5
•6:30 PM – Yi-Ling Liu: China’s Internet Censorship
Subject: International Relations, China
Where:725 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10021
Who: Center on U.S - China Relations 
What: Talk with technology journalist Yi-Ling Liu, examining the structure, evolution, and political implications of internet censorship in China and its impact on information control and society.

•6:30 PM – Andrew Yang Presents: Hey Yang, Where’s My Thousand Bucks? w/ Rikki Schlott
Subject: Political Commentary
Where: P&T Knitwear, 450 W 14th St, New York, NY
Who: P&T Knitwear  
What: ve event with Andrew Yang and Rikki Schlott tied to Yang’s tour/book Hey Yang, Where’s My Thousand Bucks? discussing politics, policy, and civic engagement. Hopefully he gives money he promised at. this event!

🗓 Friday, February 6
•6:45 PM – The Hidden Economic Beliefs that Cost You Money
Subject: Economics
Where: Fabrik NYC, 12–16 Vestry Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10013
Who: Wolilo Lectures 
What: An NYU economist-led explanation of common misconceptions about inflation, debt, and government spending, and how economic beliefs shape public policy outcomes. It’s at Fabrik, which is a great venue, so I might go to this.

🗓 Saturday, February 7
•3:30 PM – David Felsen Discusses New York City Monuments of Black Americans: A History and Guide
Subject: Black History
Where: Battery Park City Library  
Who: New York Public Library  
What: A discussion featuring author David Felsen on his book New York City Monuments of Black Americans: A History and Guide, exploring the stories behind monuments that honor Black Americans throughout New York City.

🗓 Sunday, February 8
•11:00 PM – Fish + Stark — We Have It in Our Power to Begin the World Over Again
Subject: Political Thought and Public Ideas
Where: New York Society for Ethical Culture
Who: New York Society for Ethical Culture  
What: Conversation with the American Humanist Association Executive Director Fish Stark on We Have It in Our Power to Begin the World Over Again, covering themes of political renewal, democracy, and social transformation.

Show up, think deeper, and as always, stay Unmuted!

The Unmuted Team