National Week of Conversation was created for those exhausted by division and hatred. You’re invited to bring your passion for issues in an environment where you can be heard. We welcome all Americans, across our many differences, into conversations that can rekindle relationships and help us relearn how to be the “we” we know we can be.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The Paradox for Independents
Feb 10, 2025
Political independents in the United States are not chiefly moderates. In The Independent Voter, Thomas Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali make it clear that independents are basically anti-establishment. They have a "mindset" that aims to dismantle the duopoly in our national politics.
I have previously written about different ways that independents can obtain power in Washington. First, they can get elected or converted in Washington and advocate with their own independent voices. Second, they can seek a revolution in which they would be the most dominant voice in Washington. And third, a middle position, they can seek a critical mass in the Senate especially, namely five to six seats, which would give them leverage to help the majority party get to 60 votes on policy bills.
Since they do not speak with one voice—after all, there are about 60 million independents or unaffiliated voters in the United States, not to mention a large percentage of the 85 million 'eligible' voters who are not 'registered' to vote—there is no one path they should all follow.
The most reasonable path forward for independents is to pursue their independence from both major parties even as they advocate for what I have called a tripartisan system of governance in Washington. This would be a system in which there are three political forces in Washington, not two. The time has come for the United States to jettison the goal of bipartisanship and replace it with the goal of tripartisanship. Bipartisanship is not the goal in multiparty democracies throughout the world.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The paradox for independents is that in order to achieve their independence from the Democratic and Republican Parties they must commit to working with them and not trying to overtake them. Like women in progressive quarters in the last two generations, political independents must separate from the two powerful parties even as they seek to create a new relationship with them. The woman who needs her own identity over and above mother and wife, notably via having a career, may seek this identity even as she seeks to transform her marriage with her husband. Of course, some women may divorce their husbands and find new husbands or marry women or not marry at all. Yet, there is a model where the dominated woman, whose identity is suppressed, affirms her identity and demands that her spouse affirm it, too.
Political independents running for the U.S. Senate in 2026, for example, may advocate for the tripartisan ideal and the creation of an Independent Caucus in the U.S. Senate. They may run against Democrats and Republicans in their own state, or like Dan Osborn in his 2024 Nebraska Senate race, run as an Independent against a Republican. Yet, part of their campaign would be devoted to advocating for the tripartisan ideal.
By the time there are five or six independents in the U.S. Senate—Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) are among the handful of Republicans in the Senate who might convert—this Independent Caucus would create the foundation for what Charles Wheelan called a "fulcrum strategy," only he was focused on electing centrist members of a Centrist Party.
Tripartisans should not blast the Trump administration. The Democrats will take care of that. Indeed, the two parties are destined to fight bitterly with each other for the next four years. Tripartisans must be committed to overcoming the intense polarization in Washington and pave the way for the post-Trump years. Of course, many Republicans are hoping for post-Trump years that sustain the populist, ultra-right-wing perspective being unveiled every day. The tripartisan ideal can actually help either majority party.
To be clear: Because tripartisans are not ideologically aligned, they are not passionate about the same policies. Rather, they would each support various, though not all, policy bills (ranging from climate change to entitlement reform) because they want to end polarization and dysfunction in Washington as well as keep their seats in the U.S. Senate and the Independent Caucus.
The tripartisan model is designed to transcend the battlefield of American politics over the next two to six, and probably ten years, and integrate political independents with their own voices, attitudes, and ideas into the political process. If Senator Murkowski converted to an Independent in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, that would be a major development: One small step for the U.S. Senate, one giant leap for the United States.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat
Feb 10, 2025
Excerpt from To Stop a Tyrant by Ira Chaleff
In my book To Stop a Tyrant, I identify five types of a political leader’s followers. Given the importance of access in politics, I range these from the more distant to the closest. In the middle are bureaucrats. No political leader can accomplish anything without a cadre of bureaucrats to implement their vision and policies. Custom, culture and law establish boundaries for a bureaucrat’s freedom of action. At times, these constraints must be balanced with moral considerations. The following excerpt discusses ways in which bureaucrats need to thread this needle.
The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat
There is a dilemma the bureaucrat dealing with an autocrat may face. Leaders and followers always interact within a specific context. In democratic societies, the strongman or autocrat is typically elevated to office in periods when the populace is experiencing social anxiety, economic uncertainty or external threat. They are primed for the message of a charismatic autocrat who promises them easy answers to difficult problems and targets the existing government as the problem for inaction.
While the charismatic populist is using and inflating the existing anxieties, there is often an element of truth to what they are saying. The people may be wondering why the government can’t do something to ease their anxieties or deprivations. The government can in fact do so, but it rarely moves quickly and dramatically. Its established processes, some mandated by law, some by rules and regulations, others by custom, often require the input of many constituencies and coordination between a number of different agencies and layers of government. This requires meetings, hearings, comment periods, collaboration, compromise and documentation, all of which take time.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
A short-term value of the populist autocrat is that they do not hold themselves to these protracted processes. With little respect for diverse perspectives or conventional norms, they tear through the maze of obstacles and seek to ram through solutions. This is a two-edged sword. On one side of the blade, this cuts through cumbersome process and accelerates muscular responses to the conditions creating anxiety, earning the support of the populace. On the other side of the blade, ramming through solutions weakens the institutions designed to equitably assign resources to programs and populations, and opens the process to large scale corruption that is difficult to document.
The principled bureaucrat is committed to preventing the latter, but must be politically astute about not thwarting the former, which has the support of the populace. This is not a task that responds well to purists. The bureaucrat will need to walk the line to support rapidly easing the burdens of the populace while maintaining the integrity of the institution and its processes.
Refusing orders that violate human rights
The greatest responsibility for correct followership to political leaders resides in a special class of bureaucratic followers — the military, law enforcement, and intelligence services. There is a conundrum here. Those who serve in these authorized vehicles of State power must be willing to use force, and at times lethal force, at the command of legitimate political leadership, yet also need to be the most willing to disobey if the order is illegitimate.
In liberal democracies, the oath taken is to defend against all enemies of the constitution, internal and external. But in the case of a de facto or actual coup, both sides will claim legitimacy regardless of objective reality. How will military personnel, intelligence, or law enforcement officers recognize the true defender from the usurper?
The usurper of political power violates the essential values that protect individual freedoms and collective decision making, supposedly in defense of the State, while undermining their very core. The classical meaning of the term “liberal values” must be understood and differentiated from attempts to distort and degrade its meaning. Classical liberal values are the sacrosanct protections of individual freedom to think, speak, write, associate, congregate and live free of arbitrary government coercion. The only legitimate constraints on these rights are where their use denies or abrogates the same rights for others.
Interestingly, these rights conferred upon all human beings living within a society are not fully given to the bureaucrats themselves, or to the armed enforcers of the law and protectors of national defense. In those capacities, individual rights are subordinated to the constraints and responsibilities of the role they are serving. It would be chaotic if everyone in a government agency were freely giving their opinion to the media of the correct interpretation of events, policies and preferred strategies. Or enforcing their own interpretation of laws and regulations. There is merit to norms and rules that require government policy positions to be systematically developed, communicated and executed.
To thwart or support?
Bureaucrats know there are a variety of tools that can be used to thwart policy changes or implementations. Morally, this is again a two-edged blade. If being used to delay or block patently immoral policies one can argue the justifications for these tactics. But in a liberal democracy this is also a problem. The government is elected to formulate policies. If this is done in reasonably fair, transparent and lawful ways, it is not the place of the bureaucracy to thwart those policies.
But what about when the elected government operates in deceitful, secretive and unlawful ways — in other words as a proto-tyrannical government? What is the bureaucrat’s responsibility?
If the politics are still largely democratic, the offending government can be turned out of office in the next election cycle. Bureaucrats aware of this, may choose to slow walk, stall and delay policy approval or implementation to mitigate damage. The ethics of this can be argued, but the use of procedural power is part of the politically savvy tool kit. If the government retains power in a fair election, bureaucrats are faced with complying or, in egregious situations, resigning on principle. Continuing to sabotage the government undermines the representative government they are seeking to defend.
If the democratic political process has been eviscerated by an autocratic regime, reducing it to a mere fig leaf, how does the ethical equation change? It is in this situation that “just following orders” is a crime and followership is tested at its moral core.
It is in the window where the abuse of power is evident and documented, but before power is consolidated, that the bureaucrat needs to act. Once power is consolidated, senior positions will be filled with cronies, adjudication processes will be nullified or packed with lackeys, media channels will be suborned or shuttered, political opposition will be silenced.
The bureaucrat who has played it safe in their career is thrust into a moral role that is anything but safe. Their core principles tightly interwoven with political awareness, are needed if they are to walk with head held high (and still attached), through the minefield being lain by the proto-tyrant.
Taking the liberty to degenderize the words of the great playwright, political dissident, and former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, they remain highly salient:
Ira Chaleff is a speaker, innovative thinker and the author of “To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers to Make or Brake a Toxic Leader.”
Keep ReadingShow less
Can a touchdown create community?
Feb 09, 2025
Every year, on Super Bowl Sunday, Americans come together.
For one day, under the banner of a football game, the divisions that so often define our daily lives fade into the background. Our polling shows that three-quarters of liberals and conservatives alike plan to watch this year’s pro football championship game.
More importantly, a striking 76% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans say these events deepen community ties that, on other days, feel fractured if not entirely broken. And this does not just happen in the confines of our homes or families – 73% of Liberals and 71% of Conservatives agree that such occasions help them feel connected to people nationwide.
We don’t just watch a football game; we share a collective experience. We gather with friends and family, cheer for our favorite teams, laugh at the commercials, and marvel at the halftime show. For a few hours, the divisions that so often define our daily lives fade into the background.
So, what if we carried that spirit beyond Sunday night?
In the aftermath of November’s razor-thin election results, we seem to be constantly told that we’re divided. The headlines declare it, politicians exploit it, and social media algorithms thrive on it. And after hearing it long enough, we start to believe it. We pull away from neighbors, disengage from our communities, and lose the sense of connection that binds us together.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many Americans feel disconnected from their neighbors and even from members of their own families, our polling shows. Less than half of us—48%—are proud to be associated with our local communities, and just 61% take pride in our country. One in two adults is estranged from a close relative, often over political differences.
And yet—there’s a big but—we still love to play. Sports remain one of the few places where Americans come together across all differences. From preschool soccer games to senior go leagues, from neighborhood pickleball matches to pickup basketball, from ultra-marathoners to Special Olympics Unified Teams—play remains an essential part of who we are.
This truth is hiding in plain sight every Super Bowl Sunday. We know that it isn’t all about rooting for the Chiefs or the Eagles. In fact, only 31% of people watch because they care about the outcome. It’s more than just a game—it’s a national ritual that reminds us what we share.
Of the 100 most-watched television broadcasts in the U.S. last year, 72 were NFL games, with the Super Bowl easily topping that list. The 2024 Super Bowl was the most-watched telecast in U.S. history—nearly 124 million people tuned in—it nearly doubled the viewing audience of the next-biggest broadcast of the year, the September presidential debate, which drew an audience of 67 million.
What a striking contrast between what brings us together and what pulls us apart. It’s more than just a game—it’s a national ritual that reminds us what we share. We may root for different teams, but we all show up for the drama of competition, the artistry of performers, and the joy of being together. We celebrate community. We celebrate creativity. We celebrate the best of the American spirit.
The challenge is finding ways to sustain this unity beyond a single night. Organizations like the Special Olympics Unified Teams seek athletes and volunteers of all ability levels. Do you like flag football? There’s a rec league for you. Prefer bowling? A team is waiting to welcome you. From soccer to skating, softball to basketball, the only requirement is a willingness to play.
Not into sports? There are countless other ways to build community. Love to serve? Lions Clubs welcome new members. Want to mentor young people? Police Athletic Leagues are always forming. Looking to get in shape? Walking clubs offer a simple, free way to connect.
Super Bowl Sunday is a reminder that America’s divisions aren’t the whole story. Of course, we have differences—sometimes painful ones. But in a democracy, we bring our passions to the public square to build the future we believe in. And here’s the key: hatred doesn’t advance any cause except hatred itself. No one wants to live in a country defined by contempt.
Super Bowl Sunday offers us a lesson on how to beat it—with the simplest of tools: play together. Compete with respect. Treat one another with dignity. Believe in something bigger than ourselves. That’s the American spirit. And it’s not just for game day—it’s for every day.
Tim Shriver is chairman of the board of Special Olympics, a global sports movement to enddiscrimination against people with intellectual disabilities.
Will Johnson is chief executive of The Harris Poll, one of the world’s leading public-opinion research firm.Keep ReadingShow less
A Democracy Reform Movement- If we can define it!
Feb 09, 2025
This is the first of an ongoing series titled “Cross-partisan Visions.” It is in honor of co-publisher David Nevins' dear friend Rob Stein, who passed away in May 2022. Stein was an early architect of what he called the “Cross-Partisan vision.” He and Nevins spent countless hours thinking about how people from across traditional divides can imagine and, therefore, collaboratively implement strategies to realize their common interests and shared destinies and, in turn, build a new values-based constituency with a collective vision and a compelling new cultural and political voice.
Our Founding Fathers created a masterful document that has stood the test of time. The Constitution of the United States prescribes the principles and the rules defining the organization of our government and is the supreme law of the land.
Despite its magnificence, the Constitution does not fully address the particulars of the manner in which we, the people, are to utilize our founders' marvelous blueprint of self-governance. It offers the mechanics of government; it defines the roles of our executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Its core component, the Bill of Rights, delineates the liberties we all cherish as Americans.
However, the constitution does not consider the question of how ourleadership interacts with each other and with the citizenry.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The Founding Fathers knew quite well that how our elected officials engaged with each other and the citizens would be a determining factor in the success of the great document that they had just written. As one reads the many written exchanges shared between our Founding Fathers, it becomes clear that they realized that at the very heart of democratic governance lie the rules of engagement for constructive political dialogue and debate, yet this was not clearly delineated in the Constitution.
Jefferson knew full well that democracy was born from discourse and discussion and that this discussion would be replete with differing perspectives and opinions. These brilliant men believed that ideological differences would ultimately lead to inquiry and inquiry to truth. In their writings to each other, they expressed the importance of our leaders practicing both civility and critical thinking for their Grand Experiment in Democracy to withstand the test of time.
This is what our Founding Fathers both wanted and feared as they pondered what the future would hold for the United States. Now, over 250 years later, their worst fears have come to fruition as the lack of civility and critical thinking permeates our legislative and executive branches.
Our founding fathers wanted a Democracy defined by a Constitution with a Bill of Rights for the citizenry. They were led by individuals who understood the importance of critical thinking and civility. They discussed what that meant; they considered defining it, but this major component of democratic governance was never fully addressed or defined. Perhaps, they simply ran out of time since a unified governing entity had to be formed quickly.
And that unfulfilled task, I believe, can and must be done now.
I believe We, the People, can create a document that reflects what our Founding Fathers hoped for and anticipated in terms of the nature, climate, and ethics of debate that would be employed by our elected leaders. The document I am proposing would be based on the Principles of Civil Discourse and Critical Thinking.
Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that this document be developed as an amendment to our Constitution. This document would not become the law of the land.
Instead, I am suggesting this document would be the basis of a platform for a bi- or multi-partisan political movement that would redefine what the American people would accept and expect from their elected officials. Amongst other things, the document would define the nature of an effective collaborative process that would facilitate and promote a far more solutions-based governing by Congress and by the executive branch, as well as what is needed to hold elected representatives accountable to these principles.
For the last 12 years, as chairman of the Board of the Bridge Alliance, I have worked with many people and organizations dedicated to the simple proposition that there are common-sense solutions to our national challenges and to the belief that our government should be capable of addressing those challenges successfully.
Yet despite the common bond of healthy self-governance that binds these organizations and people together, no defining constitution has been created. There is no clear mission or constitution for these many democratic reforms and bridging organizations that define common core principles.
If hundreds of organizations ever want to become a movement that builds a thriving,, and healthy democratic republic and fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer, a “Movement Constitution” needs to be agreed upon.
For true change to happen in our democratic republic, Americans must become involved and realize they have the power to bring about the change they desire, and to do so; they must have a common understanding of what is needed to effectuate this.
What might the components of that document be?
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More