Here is what I should have posted instead of #5, but the thoughts hadn't coalesced until I wrote post 5.

As I worked with ACA on the USBRS, I had the opportunity to spend time with Jim Sayer and Ginny Sullivan, and on occasion others such as Teri Maloughney. Occasionally the discussion would stray to political issues, but in a respectful and informative manner. My clear recollection is that most of the long-time ACA staff was at least one standard deviation to the left side of the political spectrum, but that they almost all seemed to understand the membership was composed of a much wider range of political viewpoints, and that bringing in political content could needlessly alienate many members. Then as they retired, a new generation of staffers arrives, who it would seem had a different worldview in that they may have internalized a "the personal is political" mindset and/or a presumption that a supermajority of the membership would embrace more-overtly political content consistent with the circles in which they traveled. The membership data would seem to indicate that this may not have been entirely the case; however, it may be shortsighted to attribute all or most of the loss to explicitly political factors.

I used to be involved in general social media such as Twitter and Facebook, but walked away from almost all of that in early 2021. I will note that a few old-line ACA staffers were very in-your-face with politics and it did result in permanent ruptures in real and virtual friendships - but this was the exception rather than the rule.