Ask Big Questions is helping restore the soul of higher education. We provide powerful tools to engage diverse participants. Participants connect through reflective conversations. These conversations build trust and understanding in communities.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
white and red heart sticker
Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash
Does My Vote Still Matter?
Jul 07, 2025
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Roselyn Gonzalez, a recent graduate of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.
Here’s her insight on the topic.
Civic responsibilities, such as citizen-initiated proposals, allow voters to bypass their state legislature. But what happens when representatives adamantly undermine their constituents by drastically altering voter-approved measures? As a Nebraskan, I am one of many voters who feel as if their government is not working in their best interest.
Notably, the state has a unicameral legislature, which was implemented in 1934 when voters approved a constitutional amendment. Among many reasons Nebraskans decided to adopt the structure was to minimize legislative gridlock, a situation where the legislative process stalls because lawmakers cannot agree.
During Nebraska’s 2025 legislative session, voter-approved initiatives were heavily debated, despite receiving an overwhelming amount of support. Ballot Measure 437 was approved by 71% of voters, allowing the use of up to five ounces of cannabis for medical purposes, and Measure 436 received a 75% approval rate, obligating businesses to offer paid sick leave. If a business has at least 20 employees, it must allow up to seven days of leave. If the company has fewer than 20 employees, the allowed leave is five days.
But several paid sick leave benefits were rolled back, and medical marijuana is still unregulated because our legislators couldn’t work together.
“It’s pretty clear an effort to undermine, at least in part, if not entirely, the verdict that the Nebraska voters came to,” said political consultant Ryan Horn. “Politically, that’s kind of a dangerous game.”
While we are seeing active developments towards the regulation of medical marijuana, there are barriers in the way of breakthroughs the implementation of the new committee of The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, current lawsuits, and the possibility that the Department of Health and Human Services will be contracted to partner with the commission which is problematic. The citizen-led ballot was a way to divert from DHHS.
Notably, the health agency has strongly opposed legalization for years. They have the potential to derail the intent of the cannabis measure.
On the other hand, the paid sick leave initiative is set to take effect on October 1, 2025; however, it has been drastically altered. One example is the modification of waiting periods for paid sick leave. The measure initially stated that employees would be able to use accrued paid sick leave, but it was later modified to allow paid sick leave after 80 hours of consecutive employment.
Voters disapproved of this.
It’s essential to note that Nebraskans have consistently voted for Republican candidates. The support levels of these measures would not be high without Republican votes. Although we are in a period of political polarization, this is not about which party you align with – our representatives are working against us.
“Republicans vote for these things a lot,” said Horn, referring to progressive ballot initiatives despite affiliation with the Republican party. “You don't win 60% of the vote in Nebraska without winning a lot of Republican votes.”
In 2022, citizens voted to raise the minimum wage by $1.50 each year through 2026. By 2027, the minimum wage is scheduled to increase in line with the cost of living.
The initiative was brought into question during this legislative session. Again, threatening direct democracy.
Alarmingly, this is not exclusive to my home state. Many other states are facing a similar fate, with some approving efforts to make it harder for voters to have the opportunity to change laws. In 2026, Utah citizens will have to choose to require ballot initiatives to receive at least 60% of the vote if the law calls for tax increases. Currently, the state’s constitutional amendment requires a simple majority vote for a law to be enacted. Utah Senate President Stuart Adams argues that if citizen-led initiatives are not regulated, it can destroy the state.
In Missouri, the legislature voted to repeal paid sick leave after voters approved it. Just a month after it was passed, the lawmakers acted quickly to reverse the measures.
The exhaustion voters are experiencing is causing citizens to disengage from politics. Overwhelmed by national politics, it's hard to keep up with what's going on in your home state. The local media coverage is scarcer than ever; there is no megaphone to sound the alarm. There are still ways to have your voice heard. Don’t back down; it is up to us to hold our representatives accountable.
Pushing the legislature can start in many ways; one way to begin is by holding citizen assemblies, a group of citizens selected randomly from the state’s population. The goal is to increase public engagement, sort of like jury duty, but for ordinary people. Initiatives that would be considered are not disclosed until the members are chosen.
Often, citizen-led ballots allow for too many initiatives, which can overwhelm voters; citizen assemblies can help regulate the number of measures on a ballot. Additionally, public hearings on an initiative can provide full transparency before it is presented to legislators. As a result, these tools can help strengthen direct democracy, and the structure can help fulfill the goal of injecting citizen control into the democratic process.
Roselyn Gonzalez is a recent graduate of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln with over three years of experience in multimedia journalism. She’s a passionate photographer and politics enthusiast, and most of her time is spent behind a lens or reading up on public policy. Her work focuses on stories about social issues, civic engagement, and underrepresented voices.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The B-2 "Spirit" Stealth Bomber flys over the 136th Rose Parade Presented By Honda on Jan. 1, 2025, in Pasadena, California. (Jerod Harris/Getty Images/TNS)
Jerod Harris/Getty Images/TNS)
Is Bombing Iran Deja Vu All Over Again?
Jul 07, 2025
After a short and successful war with Iraq, President George H.W. Bush claimed in 1991 that “the ghosts of Vietnam have been laid to rest beneath the sands of the Arabian desert.” Bush was referring to what was commonly called the “Vietnam syndrome.” The idea was that the Vietnam War had so scarred the American psyche that we forever lost confidence in American power.
The elder President Bush was partially right. The first Iraq war was certainly popular. And his successor, President Clinton, used American power — in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere — with the general approval of the media and the public.
But when the younger Bush, Clinton’s successor, launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Vietnam syndrome came back with a vengeance. Barely three weeks after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2002, famed New York Times correspondent R.W. Apple penned a piece headlined “A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam.”
“Like an unwelcome specter from an unhappy past,” Apple wrote, “the ominous word ‘quagmire’ has begun to haunt conversations among government officials and students of foreign policy, both here and abroad.”
“Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam?” he rhetorically asked. “Echoes of Vietnam are unavoidable,” he asserted.
Over the next 12 months, the newspaper ran nearly 300 articles with the words “Vietnam” and “Afghanistan” in them. The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times ran articles mentioning Iraq and Vietnam at an average rate of more than twice a day (I looked it up 20 years ago).
The tragic irony is that President George W. Bush did what his father couldn’t: He exorcised the specter of “another Vietnam” — but he also replaced it with the specter of “another Iraq.”
That’s what’s echoing in the reaction to President Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. We’re all familiar with cliches about generals fighting the last war, but journalists and politicians have the same habit of cramming the square peg of current events into the round hole of previous conflicts.
Trump’s decision to bomb Iran — which I broadly support, with caveats — is fair game for criticism and concern. But the Iraq syndrome cosplay misleads more than instructs. For starters, no one is proposing “boots on the ground,” never mind “occupation” or “nation-building.”
The debate over whether George W. Bush lied us into war over the issue of weapons of mass destruction is more tendentious than the conventional wisdom on the left and right would have you believe. But it’s also irrelevant. No serious observer disputes that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon for decades. The only live question is, or was: How close is Iran to having one?
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, told Congress in March — preposterously in my opinion — that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” On Sunday, “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker asked Vice President JD Vance, “So, why launch this strike now? Has the intelligence changed, Mr. Vice President?”
It’s a good question. But it’s not a sound basis for insinuating that another Republican president is again using faulty intelligence to get us into a war — just like Iraq.
The squabbling over whether this was a “preemptive” rather than “preventative” attack misses the point. America would be justified in attacking Iran even if Gabbard was right. Why? Because Iran has been committing acts of war against America, and Israel, for decades, mostly through terrorist proxies it created, trained, funded and directed for that purpose. In 1983, Hezbollah militants blew up the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, killing 63. Later that year, it blew up the U.S. Marine barracks, also in Beirut, killing 241 Americans. In the decades since, Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies have orchestrated or attempted the murder of Americans repeatedly, including during the Iraq war. It even authorized the assassination of President Trump, according to Joe Biden’s Justice Department.
These are acts of war that would justify a response even if Iran had no interest in a nuclear weapon. But the fanatical regime — whose supporters routinely chant “Death to America!” — is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
For years, the argument for not taking out that program has rested largely on the fact that it would be too difficult. The facilities are too hardened, Iran’s proxies are too powerful.
That is the intelligence that has changed. Israel crushed Hezbollah and Hamas militants and eliminated much of Iran’s air defense system. What once seemed like a daunting assault on a Death Star turned into a layup by comparison.
None of this means that things cannot get worse or that Trump’s decision won’t end up being regrettable. But whatever that scenario looks like, it won’t look much like what happened in Iraq, except for those unwilling to see it any other way.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
a close up of a typewriter with the word conspiracy on it
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Conspiratorial Thinking Isn’t Growing–Its Consequences Are
Jul 06, 2025
The Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate shooting, the plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and a man’s livestreamed beheading of his father last year were all fueled by conspiracy theories. But while the headlines suggest that conspiratorial thinking is on the rise, this is not the case. Research points to no increase in conspiratorial thinking. Still, to a more dangerous reality: the conspiracies taking hold and being amplified by political ideologues are increasingly correlated with violence against particular groups. Fortunately, promising new research points to actions we can take to reduce conspiratorial thinking in communities across the US.
Some journalists claim that this is “a golden age of conspiracy theories,” and the public agrees. As of 2022, 59% of Americans think that people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories today than 25 years ago, and 73% of Americans think conspiracy theories are “out of control.” Most blame this perceived increase on the role of social media and the internet.
But these headlines misunderstand the crisis: belief in conspiracy theories is not on the rise. Dr. Joseph Uscinski, an expert on conspiracy theories at the University of Miami who has tracked their prevalence and effects for close to two decades, finds no increase in levels of conspiratorial thinking. Others echo his findings: a study by Uscinski and researchers from the US and UK found no increase in conspiratorial beliefs in the US (or in six European countries, for that matter) from the 1960s through 2020. For instance, only about 5% of Americans believe in Q-Anon, and positive feelings towards Q-Anon have not increased since 2018. In fact, belief decreased rather than increased in most of the conspiracy theories examined. Most conspiracy theories pop up and burn out quickly. Those that take hold for a number of years are the exception.
What is growing is the link between believing in conspiracies and justifying or committing violence against particular groups or political opponents. A 2024 study found that between 2012 and 2022, the correlation between support for political violence and conspiratorial thinking tripled in magnitude–– but researchers don’t know why. Researchers do know that “fringe” conspiracy beliefs––less popular beliefs held by more homogenous groups––tend to correlate more strongly with political violence. Specifically, Holocaust denialism and false flag theories (conspiracies that suggest that attacks or events were staged by one group and pinned on another, such as that school shootings are staged by professional actors) are particularly strongly correlated with support for political violence. Experts suggest that this growing link is perhaps due to violent people more often turning to conspiracies to justify their violent actions. Committing violence may not be such a leap for Holocaust deniers who are already willing to entertain violent thoughts outside the mainstream. Meanwhile, violent individuals might believe they are justified in acting on false flag conspiracies when those beliefs are normalized and amplified by political ideologues–– as with assertions that the FBI perpetrated the January 6th insurrection.
Conspiratorial thinking doesn't make people violent. Instead, it directs violent people towards particular targets, channeling violence against groups like Jews, Muslims, and the LGBTQ+ community. The 2017 Charlottesville protesters, decrying “Jews will not replace us,” echoed the Great Replacement Theory and Jewish world domination conspiracies. Conspiracies have also become a justification for militant Accelerationists, a group that advocates destroying economic, political, and societal systems to hasten the downfall of societies and rebuild them in their image. In the 2018 Tree of Life Shooting, the assailant killed 11 congregants because he believed the synagogue was systematically bringing in immigrants to replace White Americans. Additionally, as seen in the examples above, attitude generalization causes prejudice against one group––say, from a conspiracy theory focused on Jews––to increase prejudice towards other groups, such as Asians, Muslims, and the LGBTQ+ community.
Encouragingly, some successful interventions are emerging. Promising new research had people who believe in conspiracies discuss their beliefs with artificial intelligence, large language models. Participants knew they were interacting with AI, and yet the interaction reduced belief in their chosen conspiracy theories by 20%, with the effect lasting at least two months. This debunking even spilled over into participants’ belief in other conspiracies, leading to a general decrease in conspiratorial thinking. That makes sense: conspiratorial thinking is more of a belief system (i.e. blaming secret plots spearheaded by elites or malign groups to explain events in opposition to evidence presented by bodies of experts), rather than a belief in just one conspiracy. Interestingly, receiving information from an AI bot may work better than human interventions, because believers feel judged by people, get defensive, and dig in. With an AI bot, they can ask for and receive facts without the emotions that come from feeling attacked. This might cause participants to be less defensive, perceive less bias, and use more analytical thinking.
Additionally, researchers found that having one to four strong social connections reduces the likelihood of supporting or engaging in political violence. Work in other areas of targeted violence suggests that family intervention encourages change in these beliefs. Methods such as these could prove effective for changing the minds of those who believe in conspiracy theories and keeping those who hold violent conspiracies from taking the next step into action. Combined with this promising new AI intervention, there may be a real chance to blunt the impact of conspiracy theories on targeted groups.
Dalya Berkowitz is a Senior Research Analyst in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on targeted and political violence in the U.S. She has an MA in Security Studies from Georgetown University.Keep ReadingShow less
Report: One-third of the country has limited voting access since the 2020 election
krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images
Nonprofit VOTE Engaging With Communities Historically Excluded From Voting
Jul 06, 2025
For nearly 20 years, Nonprofit VOTE has engaged 60,000 workers at 120 nonprofit organizations nationwide to register to vote, including young people.
According to Nonprofit VOTE’s website and executive director, Brian Miller, the organization works to provide nonpartisan resources to nonprofits across the United States, helping them integrate voter engagement into their ongoing activities and services. Nonprofit VOTE's annual report states that seven out of ten voters believe nonprofits should offer voting services to constituents.
“[Nonprofits] have missions and values of community empowerment that transcend the politics of the day,” the annual report states. “This gives them an unmatched advantage at engaging voters typically overlooked by partisan groups and campaigns who have very-short term goals focused on a day in November.”
Nonprofit VOTE reaches nonprofits across the United States, engaging with communities. These organizations include direct-service nonprofits, such as food pantries and community health centers, as well as community-based organizations and grassroots groups. Miller said these nonprofits are the ones directly engaging with potential voters.
One example of an organization with which Nonprofit VOTE has engaged is The Human Service Chamber of Franklin County, Ohio. Miller said the group had only three staff members who joined their network. One of these members ran the Highland Youth Garden, which produces fresh food for a diverse neighborhood.
Miller added moments like this show how Nonprofit VOTE’s work “ripples outward” from regional partners to local sites.
“It’s a cascading, snowflake-like effect: small initiatives multiplying into widespread impact,” Miller said.
Nonprofit VOTE has several programs and initiatives to engage voters using resources from engaged nonprofits. One is their general resources and training, which they ensure are accessible by offering closed captioning, alternative image naming, and more.
Miller said their resources are designed to assist nonprofits at various stages in getting the communities they serve ready to vote. These materials include fact sheets, informative guides, and webinars, which Miller said reach over 3,000 nonprofit leaders each year.
Miller added that in recent years, these materials have transitioned to digital formats due to the “dramatic shift” in voter engagement spaces over the past few years. For example, Miller said that Nonprofit VOTE held a webinar before the 2024 general election to discuss disinformation and misinformation caused by artificial intelligence.
“Our partners consistently demonstrate that this tailored model of civic engagement goes beyond participation to foster dignity and empowerment,” Miller said.
Miller also said non-profits were 1.3 times more likely to engage with young voters aged 18 to 24. The Pew Research Center has referred to Generation Z as “digital natives” because they are the first generation with little or no memory of a time before smartphones.
Beginning in 2025, Nonprofit VOTE also added a new program called “Getting Started.” Miller said that, unlike their virtual webinars, which typically include over 100 participants, Getting Started is a monthly, smaller meeting with fewer than 30 attendees for organizations new to voter engagement, teaching them those skills.
However, in terms of the biggest challenges Nonprofit VOTE faces, Miller said there is “distrust” and “disillusionment” among communities that have been historically excluded from voting. But Miller said nonprofit organizations engaging with communities and providing voting resources help increase voter turnout for these groups.
Looking ahead to next year, Miller said Nonprofit VOTE is focusing on the 2026 midterms, where they want to build a field program with state-based organizations and expand the work of their national staff.
Miller added that the organization stays motivated by “centering community voices” and “maintaining strong relationships” with organizations.
“In the long term, we aim to close participation gaps and ensure inclusive democracy, where all voices are represented and included,” Miller said.
Maggie Rhoads is a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum, she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
Maggie was a cohort member in Common Ground USA's Journalism program, where Hugo Balta served as an instructor. Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn more by clicking HERE.
editsharetrending_upKeep ReadingShow less
Load More