Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The new talk

Opinion

Tina Kotek

While Democrat Tina Kotek faced a stronger-than-usual GOP challenge for governor in Oregon, her party continued its dominance in a one-party state.

Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images

Frazier is a recent graduate of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and the Harvard Kennedy School.

We, the people, are the drivers of our democracy. But we’re no longer behind the wheel. Parties seized control and are steering us in a dangerous direction.

It’s time for us all to have the “talk” with anyone and everyone who cares about the future of our democracy. As a country, we’ve reached that special age where the consequences of our actions are solely our responsibility. We’re no longer that new democracy on the block that can blame its blunders on a lack of maturity.

Rather than birds and bees, we need to talk about R’s and D’s and what parties are doing to our democracy. We need to specifically talk about our mutual obligation to one another – as co-sovereigns over this great country – to register as “no party preference” or whatever the equivalent is in our respective jurisdictions.


Perhaps we, the people, were tired when we gave the keys to our democracy to parties. We had just fought for decades to free ourselves from out-of-touch and distant rulers who had little interest in our well-being and instead prioritized their own accumulation of power. So when parties offered us a chance to rest our eyes – to delegate decisions such as who would run our democracy and where they’d take us – we willingly switched to the passenger seat. “We’ll switch back at the next rest stop,” we thought.

Hundreds of miles later, parties are still in control and we, the people, are effectively sovereigns in name only. In states like Oregon, one party controls every stage of the electoral process. In that blue state, voters unaffiliated with the Democratic Party have no meaningful role in the selection of statewide officials. Thanks to a closed primary system, only registered Democrats can participate in the initial (and, in most cases, determinative) stage of the election – the candidate Democrats select in the primary almost always wins the general election.

Parties also rarely share the same goals as we, the people. Their main goal is to retain power, not to make sure they’re solving problems or communicating with constituents. Consider that incoming lawmakers are instructed to spend at least half of their day fundraising. If parties really were in our corner and truly wanted to address pressing issues – corruption, climate change and unequal access to economic opportunity, etc. – would they order officials to dial for dollars while they could be coordinating and collaborating to actually get work done?

Our democracy was designed to prevent state-based loyalties from undermining national progress. Our Founding Fathers feared that representatives would struggle to reach compromises that may benefit one state over another, which is why they designed the House and Senate in ways that would counteract the ability of a single state and its representatives to control our government.

The original design of our democracy did not include checks and balances with respect to extreme partisanship or party-based loyalties. It follows that parties are akin to an invasive species – something non-native to an environment that can wreak havoc when left unchecked.

We, the people, can no longer claim to be ignorant of the negative effect of parties on our democracy. We’re smart enough to identify candidates who should run for office; we’re aware of the problems in our community that need to be prioritized; and we’re capable of being back in the driver seat of our democracy.

It’s time for a new version of the "talk." We need to wake up to the fact that our democracy has been taken over by parties. The first step to taking back control is asserting our independence – registering as “no party preference.” As the ranks of NPPs grow, parties will have less and less authority to exercise our sovereign power.

Go have the talk. Find a friend. Tell them that we, the people, have a sovereign responsibility to care enough about our democracy to make independent decisions. Then, contact your secretary of state or election office and take that critical first step of reclaiming our position as the drivers of our democracy by freeing yourself from undying party loyalty.

Read More

Latino Voters in Reading Reassess Trump’s First Year

Pennsylvania Vote Map

Getty Images

Latino Voters in Reading Reassess Trump’s First Year

Reading, Pennsylvania — the majority‑Latino city that helped shape the outcome of the 2024 presidential election — is once again a bellwether for how Latino voters are responding to President Donald Trump’s first year back in office. Earlier this year, as part of The 50: Voices of a Nation series, The Fulcrum reported that Reading’s residents were motivated by economic anxiety, immigration concerns, and frustration with political rhetoric. Nine months later, those same issues remain at the forefront — but the mood has shifted.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
As the Earth Rumbles, the Sky Calls, LaLu, the Eagle, Wants To Speak!

A reflection on freedom, democracy, and moral courage in America, urging citizens to stand up before our values fly away.

Getty Images, James Gilbert

As the Earth Rumbles, the Sky Calls, LaLu, the Eagle, Wants To Speak!

As a professional dancer, I’ve always been grounded, but the earth is rumbling, and I am uncharacteristically unsteady. I’m not alone in this feeling. Shifting cultural values are rattling our sense of moral integrity. Unfathomable words (calling a congresswoman and the people “garbage”), acts of cruelty (killing survivors stranded in the ocean), or calling a journalist “piggy,” are playfully spun as somehow normal. Our inner GPS systems are not able to locate the center.

I’m climbing trees these days in order to get up off the earth. At the age of 74, it is frankly exhilarating – I am more cognizant of the danger, so I must be attentive. All my senses are buzzing as I negotiate the craggy shape of a giant, catalpa tree. I settle into a large, gently curving limb, which hugs my body like a nest. My cries enter the vastness of the universe, and the birds sing me to sleep. I’m trying to locate myself again. Dreams are vivid up in the air.

Keep ReadingShow less