Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The war in Ukraine could restart action on voting rights legislation

Opinion

Destroyed building in Ukraine

Residents survey the wreckage after Russia fired missiles at a housing complex in Kyiv last month. One person was killed and 19 people were injured, including four children.

Andriy Dubchak/dia images via Getty Images

Simon is a technology consultant and a contributing author of “Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework”.

The crisis in Ukraine should lead Americans to reflect on the political state in our country. The plight of the Ukrainian people, in and of itself, is a weighty issue. At the same time, the harsh reality of events in Ukraine could lead us toward strengthening the foundations of democracy at home.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine illustrates the fragility of democracy in general and, in particular, our democracy in the United States – notably, the importance of the democratic process, free and fair elections, the peaceful transition of power, and the rule of law.

The situation in Ukraine could, and should, be used as a springboard to build the case for securing voting rights in the United States. So far, Democrats in Congress have been unsuccessful in moving either the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act or the Freedom to Vote Act forward. By connecting the dots, they could leverage the crisis in Ukraine to create an effective communication strategy. The objectives would be grassroots support as well as influencing top-down thinking of moderate Republicans to elevate the importance of passing voting rights legislation.


We are all bombarded with graphic images of destruction from Ukraine via the 24-hour news cycle. Most people can distance themselves from these events since they are taking place 5,000 miles away and because we feel safe on U.S. soil. While the United States is not physically threatened by a neighboring country, the democratic process has become threatened internally. This issue was brought to the forefront when supporters of Donald Trump stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. By allowing narratives like the Big Lie about the 2020 election to perpetuate, we risk anti-democratic mechanisms taking hold in the country or within one political party.

More specifically, if Democrats can clearly articulate the association between physical attacks happening in Ukraine and ongoing attempts to chip away at the democratic process at home, we have a chance to turn the tide with some Republican lawmakers. The means to convey this message is to juxtapose the loss of basic human rights through the displacement of Ukrainian refugees with the loss of constitutional rights being threatened by restrictive voting laws being promoted in some states. We must not wait for harmful voting legislation to force U.S. citizens into refugee status – having to choose between remaining in their homes or moving their families to another state where voting rights are protected. This can only be prevented through legislation at the federal level.

An effective communication strategy must be grounded in reality in order to resonate with its intended audience. The proposed strategy connects the brutality of war in Ukraine with the risk of inaction on voting rights concerns. The intent would be to elicit a visceral reaction to this violence that logically and emotionally leads to internalizing the existential need to strengthen voting rights in America.

Proponents should convey to those who are not yet convinced that any political movement seeking to undermine the voting process could ultimately hurt either party – depending on who is in power at a given time. The current Republican leadership might view the obstruction of voting rights legislation as a means to bolster their political power in the short-term. However if we, as a country, diminish the voice of the voter, we limit our own autonomy as a representative of our constituents. The result being that our personal independence is relegated to the authoritarian party leadership, which we are dependent on to remain in office. Conversely, by supporting broad voting rights measures, Republicans will strengthen their own autonomy and the freedoms that are exercised throughout the democracy.

The United States, NATO members and many other nations are standing behind Ukraine and the tenets of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination against an oppressive, autocratic neighbor. By enabling Republican colleagues to see the authoritarianism of Vladimir Putin through a new lens, Democrats might help them to see how the aspirations of a Trumpist Republican Party could lead to unbridled authoritarianism in the United States.

Stated another way, allowing anti-democratic forces in the U.S. to chip away at democracy is akin to allowing Russia to continue to advance on Ukrainian cities, little by little, over a period of time, until there is no independent Ukraine left.

Similarly, if we allow the unfounded claims of voter fraud to lead to reduced access to voting rights in some states, we will enable authoritarian elements to take root. The challenge for Democrats is to gain buy-in from moderate Republicans.

Nothing has worked to date when it comes to swaying at least 10 Republicans in the Senate to break ranks and support voting rights bills. There’s a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville that characterizes it well:

“Everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energy enough to seek the cure.”

As Americans, we need to initiate a wake-up call to Republicans as a spark to muster the courage and energy needed to seek the cure. The link between the evil of Russian aggression and voter suppression in the U.S. offers an opening to gain bipartisan support for voting rights. The risk of inaction could lead to erosion of the very foundations of our democracy.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less