Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

America in search of itself

America in search of itself
Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

Americans after World War II felt a strong sense of national unity and moral superiority. We fought with our allies against German, Italian and Japanese enemies we believed were morally depraved, and we positioned ourselves on a moral pedestal. The Cold War led us to build up arms against our USSR allies, and this 45-year massive effort kept Democrats and Republicans in Washington positioned on the pedestal even as we engaged in a brutal ideological, economic, and social battle over the nature of our capitalist society.


There was always dissent in the country, notably the progressive young Americans who protested against the Vietnam War and supported politicians ranging from Eugene McCarthy to Robert Kennedy and Malcolm X. Still, the vast majority of Americans believed in the basic moral superiority of the United States and the moral depravity of the Soviet Union and its communist ideology.

Since the end of the Cold War we have become very fragmented as a nation with respect to the basic question of how we fit into the world. Certainly since 2016 when Donald Trump became president the country has developed a large segment of the population who see America as the leader in the world but from an America First perspective. This perspective shares the concept of America on a moral pedestal with our post World War Il and Cold War perspectives, but it broke away from the standpoint that saw the United States engaged in a common political and economic venture with our NATO allies in Europe and Japan, South Korea, India and other Asian allies.

Not all Republican politicians and citizens have embraced the America First ideology. Democrats in Washington and citizens who identify as Democrats, which is roughly about 30 percent of the country (which is a bit more than Americans who identify as Republicans), are themselves divided over how they view the country's place in the world. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama struggled to position us as an indispensable nation, a leader among world leaders. Yet it was never clear what precisely this meant.

What we must accept is that there is not going to be any concept of the country and its destiny that will be embraced by 80 or 90 percent of the country in the near future. We are plainly too fractured to achieve that sense of national unity and destiny. We need a concept of ourselves that 60 to 70 percent of the country can embrace. That is what America must search for in the years ahead.

A natural place to start is with the 40 percent of Americans who, according to Gallup, do not identify as either Democrats or Republicans. They identify as Independents. These Independents are quite a mixture of libertarians, Greens, moderates and creative thinkers who want synthesis and out of the box thinking. What unites them is their disappointment and even disgust with our politics in Washington and the rise of hostility and overall incivility in our culture at large.

This group of American adults, maybe 100 million Americans, can be a source of hope, love and commitment to one America. Leaders must listen to them, as they are not organized and have no clear leaders. These independents, though, can help pundits, the media and politicians with the very challenging task to craft a concept of America that will weave together important strands of Democratic and Republican doctrines without incorporating the one-sidedness and anger of the two parties today.

America can retain its distinctive place in the world, yet not because it is the land of liberty or the land of equal opportunity or the place of religious toleration. Our place on the world stage can no longer be reduced to a single master value.

Instead, it must revolve around our acceptance of the irreconcilable conflict between leading democratic values, notably between economic freedom and economic equality. Although Independents do not occupy the same place on the political spectrum, most do not sit on the polarized left and right sides of the spectrum. America's place in the world and its destiny should therefore come from this diverse group of dissenters. They can, moreover, draw their inspiration from the founders who made up only about a third of the colonists.

The Independents are our centrist identity more than the purists in either party. They also have an attitude of brotherhood and sisterhood which can bring us together. These Independents plus those Democrats and Republicans who are more moderate than purists can get us to 60 or even 70 percent of the country.

Read More

elementary school classroom
Urgent action is needed for our beloved public schools to renew civic life, writes Goodwin.
skynesher/Getty Images

Teach Leveraging in Middle and High School To Promote Democracy

It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.

People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

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.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less