In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses what American politics will look like in 2022 from Congress to the upcoming midterm elections.
Podcast: What will American politics look like in 2022?

In this episode of the Politics in Question podcast, the team discusses what American politics will look like in 2022 from Congress to the upcoming midterm elections.
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.
What do Kobe Bryant, Dr. Seuss, Walt Disney, Alex Trebek, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have in common?
What the bill does
The National Garden for America's 250th Anniversary Act would create a public park depicting 250 sculptures of notable historic Americans. The park would open in July 2026, tied to the “semiquincentennial” 250th anniversary of July 1776’s Declaration of Independence signing.
Who would be depicted in this park? While President Donald Trump’s executive order, which inspired it, contains a list of 250 proposed people, the actual legislative text contains no such names. Vince Haley, chair of Trump’s Domestic Policy Council, would be tasked with finalizing the selections.
Where would it be located? Again, the legislative text doesn’t say, stating that the decision is up to the Interior Secretary. While most “national” landmarks are in the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C., South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden (R) proposes locating it near Mount Rushmore in his state.
The congressional bill was introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL21).
Context
In the summer of 2020, amid a nationwide reckoning on race relations, statues of Confederate generals and other controversial figures with fraught histories on race were torn down around the country. Trump opposed these changes, calling them attempts to “erase our history.”
So that July, against this tumult, he issued an executive order creating a “National Garden of American Heroes.” A subsequent executive order in January 2021, on the third-to-last day of his term, proposed 250 Americans who could be depicted.
Most are some combination of “the usual suspects” like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, plus favorites of the modern right like conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and televangelist pastor Billy Graham.
However, at least a few names might be surprising, like liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The list also includes abolitionist Harriet Tubman, even though Trump opposed putting Tubman’s face on the $20 bill, calling it “pure political correctness.” (President Andrew Jackson, the bill’s current face for now, is also one of the 250 proposed statues.)
A few proposed names are less historical and political but instead more recent and entertaining, such as Jeopardy host Alex Trebek and basketball legend Kobe Bryant.
President Joe Biden revoked Trump’s executive order creating the statue garden in May 2021, only for Trump to reinstate it in January 2025.
Who could be included?
The 250 final statues wouldn’t necessarily match the 250 proposed statues from Trump’s executive order. Still, they provide a rough guide, an assortment of notable Americans from all walks of life.
Here are a few particularly notable names each from various different categories:
Plus a few notable names that don’t neatly fit into any of the above categories: Benjamin Franklin, Betsy Ross, Norman Rockwell, Helen Keller, Annie Oakley, Paul Revere.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the sculpture garden will serve much the same role as other iconic landmarks depicting notable Americans like the Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, and Mount Rushmore.
“The National Garden will be a beautiful site to honor our history and recognize prominent American founders and generations of trailblazers,” Rep. Mast said in a press release. “America’s past and present is filled with heroes from all walks of life and this new garden will soon be open to the public to forever remember their contributions.”
Rep. Mast’s website also includes a survey where the public can nominate anybody for a statue. The poll also includes six specific names to upvote, four of whom are on the original proposed list: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Babe Ruth. Two others are not: Trump himself and singer Kid Rock. (Both are still alive; all of the original 250 names are deceased.)
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the sculpture garden would be sycophantic propaganda at a time when the administration is slashing money for more so-called “authentic” arts.
“For 60 years, the [National Endowment for the Humanities] has enhanced education at all levels — K-12, higher ed, and community-based — by supporting a thoughtful and critical engagement with history, art, and culture,” Northwestern University Art History Professor Rebecca Zorach wrote in a Chicago Tribune opinion column. “Diverting NEH funding toward the commissioning of top-down, politically prescribed ‘art’ is an affront to the vital work the NEH has historically done.”
Opponents may also counter that this basic idea functionally already exists, in the form of the National Statuary Hall. Each of the 50 states selects two notable figures for statues representing their home states, totaling 100 statues displayed at the U.S. Capitol Building.
However, each individual legislature selects their own state’s statues, while Trump’s idea would select them at the federal level instead. At least while Trump or a Republican is president, this would make it less likely that certain statues would be taken down, like Virginia’s 2020 vote to remove Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee while Trump was president.
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted two cosponsors, both Republicans: Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) and Barry Moore (R-AL1).
It awaits a potential vote in the House Natural Resources Committee, controlled by Republicans.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Suspending Pennies and Nickels for 10 Years
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act
Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5. With Rob Ritchie and Eveline Dowling’s help, we highlight timely links and stories about democracy at the local, national, and global levels. Today's stories include:
🧨 The psychology of political violence in America
💡 Reimagining the voter guide
📖 Creating citizens’ initiative assemblies
⚡ Allowing 17-year-olds to vote
🕓 This week’s timely links
In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we intend to publish The Expand Democracy 5 in The Fulcrum each Friday.
If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
*This piece is not related to the current protests in Los Angeles, as it takes a broader perspective. That said, my advice still stands: ask friends not to be violent.*
On June 1, the tranquil ambiance of Boulder's Pearl Street Mall was shattered when Mohamed Sabry Soliman, a 45-year-old Egyptian nationalist, launched a violent assault on a peaceful pro-Israel demonstration. Armed with Molotov cocktails, Soliman injured 15 individuals, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. Soliman cited a desire to harm those he perceived as "Zionist people." His actions underscore a disturbing trend of politically motivated violence that has been escalating across the U.S., with many fearing it could get worse without greater attention to how to mitigate the threat.
This incident is not isolated. The U.S. has seen a surge in hate crimes targeting specific religious or ethnic groups, including the May 21st murder of two Israeli embassy staff outside the Capital Jewish Museum in D.C. These attacks, amid heightened tensions from the Israel-Hamas conflict, highlight that while such violence must be condemned, it can stem from political voicelessness. Washington Post columnist Shadi Hamid wrote about the genocide of Gaza's Palestinian children, who lack political recourse in the U.S. The concerns around this are valid, yet most Congress members from both major parties support military aid to Israel and defend its actions.
The attack on Congress and the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, was similar in nature. Fueled by a White House demagogue promoting “Stop the Steal” lies, the rioters felt their views were blocked by state and federal courts, state legislators, and Congress. Their violence could have escalated further without the bravery of the U.S. Capitol police, yet it led to several deaths and injuries to as many as 140 officers. President Trump’s election lies are now embraced by his party, as he pardoned the January 6th rioters on his first day in office. His supporters now have political representation in the nation’s highest offices, but it comes with an inherent volatility if they don’t like the outcome of the next national election.
One approach to maintaining activist passion in politics is providing representation, which is more likely in proportional systems than in U.S.-style winner-take-all elections. But we need not wait for structural reforms to address the root causes of radicalization and to develop comprehensive strategies against domestic extremism. As communities face the impact of such attacks, a balanced approach is required to ensure security while upholding civil liberties. Investing in outreach, education, and early intervention programs can prevent the spread of extremist ideologies.
[Source: The Religious Action Center]
The Psychology of Political Violence: When Fear Becomes Force: The attack in Boulder, CO, was not just an act of hatred. It was also an expression of deep psychological insecurity. To understand how ordinary individuals commit extraordinary violence, we must examine what political psychologists describe as defensive extremism: a process by which individuals lash out violently in response to a perceived loss of control, belonging, or identity.
Research shows that political violence is often rooted less in ideology than it is in psychological distress and identity threat (see Huddy, Mason, and Arroe, 2015). When people experience social, economic, or cultural instability, they often interpret political change as an attack on their sense of self (see Liliana Mason’s 2018 book Uncivil Agreement). In this vulnerable state, violence becomes a perverse attempt to restore agency and impose order on a world that feels chaotic. This dynamic is especially potent among (1) socially isolated individuals who lack strong community ties or identity anchors, (2) contexts of rapid change where longstanding social hierarchies or belief systems feel upended, and (3) online echo chambers where grievances are magnified and weaponized.
Other research led by Katarzyna Jasko examines how the “quest for significance” reveals how people who feel humiliated, excluded, or powerless are more likely to adopt extreme ideologies that offer dignity and clarity through action, including violent action (International Society of Political Psychology, 2014). Moghaddam’s “staircase to terrorism” model explains how personal grievances and perceived injustices escalate through stages of cognitive narrowing and moral justification, ultimately leading some individuals to see violence as the only meaningful choice (American Psychologist, 2005). In the Boulder case, the attacker expressed a desire to “send a message” and “hurt Zionist people,” reflecting the classic signs of externalized blame and moralization of violence seen in radicalized individuals.
As political violence rises in the U.S., understanding the distinct psychological processing types is crucial. Jonathan Ludwig’s Unforgiving Places, based on FBI homicide data, shows nearly 80% of American murders are expressive, not instrumental. These acts aren’t calculated for gain; they’re emotional eruptions, “a match struck in passing,” as Ludwig writes. Driven by frustration, alienation, and the need to find meaning amid perceived threats, expressive violence is spontaneous and personal. Ludwig links this violence to System 1 thinking: a rapid, reactive mode that views the world in binaries, asking “what does this have to do with me?”, and prioritizing threats over possibilities. When people are overwhelmed by fear, outrage, or perceived injustice, especially in polarized environments, this mentality can escalate political issues and turn personal grievances into public violence.
Framing these attacks as psychologically defensive doesn’t excuse them, but it does help us intervene more effectively. Preventing political violence requires more than surveillance or enforcement. It demands early interventions that build belonging, mitigate identity threats, and inoculate individuals against dehumanizing narratives. Programs focused on community engagement, online radicalization prevention, and trauma-informed education are key to addressing the root causes, not just the symptoms, of domestic extremism. In a moment when political violence is becoming more individualized, improvised, and ideologically diverse, understanding its psychological roots is essential to preserving a healthy democracy. We can all help by speaking out against violence whenever friends and neighbors suggest it.
Resources:
In 2024 and beyond, civic groups are realizing that reaching voters, especially young, new, and disengaged ones, requires more than simply sending out dense sample ballots and FAQs. A new generation of voter guides and education tools is emerging: visual, mobile, personalized, and culturally relevant. The best of these not only inform voters but also invite them in.
A recent roundup by Nonprofit VOTE offers 24 creative ideas to engage voters, including pop-up voter registration events, collaborations with local artists, and co-branded guides designed with trusted community institutions. The emphasis: meet people where they are, physically and emotionally, and use trusted messengers to increase turnout in overlooked communities.
Meanwhile, the Center for Civic Design lays out clear best practices for creating effective, inclusive voter guides. Their latest field guide encourages election officials and nonprofits alike to:
This matters most for younger voters. According to the Center for Tech and Civic Life’s youth engagement research and Aristotle’s Gen Z outreach guide, young people want:
Together, these approaches indicate a modern voter engagement model that resembles an invitation to a community project rather than a bureaucratic transaction. As we approach 2026 and 2028, Expand Democracy will be watching and supporting groups that view voter education not merely as a requirement but as a creative discipline grounded in design, storytelling, and a sense of belonging.
[Source: Harvard Law Today]
This month’s Harvard Law Review features a compelling student note that confronts a growing crisis in American democracy: the broken ballot initiative process. Once a proud Progressive Era reform to give voters a direct voice, today’s initiative system is increasingly dominated by big money, special interests, and confusing policies that voters often don’t fully understand. And yet the initiative gives voters direct power to pass policies they support. Can we fix it instead of eliminating it, and create conditions that could make it viable in more states?
The article, titled “Putting the Initiative Back Together”, proposes a bold fix: create Citizens’ Initiative Assemblies, permanent, randomly selected groups of everyday people who would deliberate on proposed ballot initiatives, offer guidance to voters, and even help shape what gets on the ballot in the first place. Drawing from international examples in Ireland and Canada, and Oregon’s own Citizens’ Initiative Review, the paper argues these deliberative bodies could restore trust, transparency, and legitimacy to the initiative process, especially as more states move to restrict direct democracy.
At a time when legislatures in multiple states are actively trying to roll back ballot access, this idea points to a future where more voters, not fewer, have a say in shaping the laws that govern them. Please send us your own ideas about how we can best have initiative and referendum rights in the 21st century.
Across the country, a quiet but growing reform is reshaping who gets a say in our democracy: allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primaries so long as they’ll be 18 by the general election. Advocates argue this simple change can have outsized impacts: strengthening youth engagement, increasing turnout, and ensuring that young voters have a voice in deciding who appears on their November ballot. It is also eminently logical: if a citizen is eligible to elect someone in November, they should have the opportunity to vote in primaries and pick the nominees for that election.
According toBallotpedia, 27 states and Washington, D.C., now allow some form of 17-year-old primary voting. In many cases, this applies to presidential primaries, but in others, it also includes 19 states for congressional and state primaries. This means millions of high school seniors, many of whom are politically aware and civically engaged, can participate in shaping the choices available in general elections.
FairVote notes that this reform can be especially effective when combined with civic education and pre-registration programs. In Maryland, for instance, pre-registered 17-year-olds voted at higher rates than older first-time voters in 2020, thanks in part to targeted outreach and school-based engagement. Allowing 17-year-olds to vote isn’t just symbolic; it has tangible results.
The principle is simple: if eligible to vote in November, you should have a say in the ballot. States seeking to boost Gen Z civic participation find this reform appealing due to its bipartisan support, low cost, and measurable impact. With the 2026 midterms approaching, expanding primary voting rights to 17-year-olds might be one of the most straightforward and impactful steps we can take.
[Teens 16 and 17 get to vote in Alameda County school board races. Source: LA Times]
We close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links:
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
Before President Trump called up the military to stop the L.A. riots this week, has the military ever been called upon to stop protests in the United States?
The military has been deployed to quell protests in the U.S. multiple times throughout history. Some notable instances include:
What is the legal framework that allows the President to deploy the military? :
The legal framework governing military deployment in U.S. protests is shaped by several key laws:
Is the legal framework that allows the President to use the National Guard to stop protests different then the framework for using the military?
The legal framework for the use of the National Guard versus the military in response to domestic unrest is different.
Are the scale of the protests and the commensurate damage and violence much less today than in the other historical examples
The scale of the current unrest in Los Angeles appears to be less destructive than some of the historical examples, but tensions remain high. Reports indicate that protests against federal immigration enforcement have led to vandalism, clashes with law enforcement, and the destruction of property, including five self-driving Waymo vehicles. National Guard troops have been deployed, marking the first federal intervention in Los Angeles without a governor’s request since 1965.
While the damage is significant, it does not yet match the widespread destruction seen in events like the Rodney King riots (1992) where there were 63 deaths and 12,000 arrests or the New York City Draft Riots (1863). However, concerns remain about escalation, as residents fear further violence. Would you like a deeper comparison of the economic impact or law enforcement response across these events?
Where the previous examples were with the support of the Governor of the State
In many cases, governors requested federal assistance, but there have been instances where the president deployed troops without state approval:
Requested by Governors:
Without Governor Support:
The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
John Bridgeland is the CEO and Executive Chair of More Perfect and former Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council under President George W. Bush. More Perfect is a recently launched bipartisan initiative designed to engage a wide range of institutions and Americans in the work of protecting and renewing American Democracy.
With a distinguished National Advisory Council-including leading democracy scholars, practitioners, and former elected officials from across the political spectrum, More Perfect is spearheading an ambitious effort to think bigger and collaborate more intentionally on ways to improve American democracy. The initiative is structured around five “democracy goals” informed by the Our Common Purpose report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences:
One ongoing concern in the pro-democracy ecosystem is its fragmentation- many organizations operate in silos, promoting individual solutions, rather than uniting around shared, ambitious objectives. I appreciated Bridgeland’s focus on collaboration and gearing this effort around specific, actionable goals. The hope, already showing early signs of success, is that articulating a coherent set of priorities can attract more philanthropic investment, which in turn, enables deeper collaboration and greater impact.
Still, I wonder whether these high-level goals will resonate beyond the grasstops that often define the democracy space, and whether a truly bipartisan approach is possible in today’s hyper-polarized environment. I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the overall initiatives and address these questions with Bridgeland. His key reflections included:
Bridgeland has been involved in efforts over the last 20 years focused on global health and development, specifically on malaria control. He noted that the creation of the Sustainable Development Goals, which were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, brought together diverse institutions and catalyzed public and private partnerships that helped spur new investment, innovation, and progress.
This approach helped spark the idea for the five democracy goals, but this did not come easily. Bridgeland reflected that he talked to an advisor who expressed that “There are all these organizations..bursting into the democratic renewal space, but it’s like the Wild West. I can’t tell what the return on investment is.”
By focusing on a clear set of five goals, More Perfect has been able to bring new funders to the table. Demonstrating that collaboration can raise all boats, both in terms of impact and budget, has helped catalyze genuine collaboration.
Bridgeland noted that More Perfect is “launching a major campaign in connection with the 250th in a nonpartisan way that will focus on America's capabilities, not its brokenness, and get people to recognize that in a democracy, they have power and agency to…improve our union.”
In a period of so much tumult, uncertainty, and change, Bridgeland noted that there is an opportunity, and potentially a need, for a new “founding” for the country, and that the 250th offers a narrative to do so.
I’m grateful to Bridgeland for providing an ambitious plan and reflecting on the need for collaboration, a forward-looking strategy, and concrete goals. I’ll be curious how More Perfect and these goals advance over the next few years, especially during the 250th anniversary.
Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.