Was the war in Ukraine inevitable? What is Vladimir Putin trying to achieve? What does the conflict say about Ukraine as a democracy? Those are just a few of the questions Michael Berkman explores this week with Donna Bahry, professor emerita of political science at Penn State and an expert in Soviet and post-Soviet politics and democratization.
Americans are not confused. We are exhausted.
We’ve watched a Congress that no longer works, a Supreme Court that often ignores its own ethical obligations, and a Justice Department hesitant to enforce the laws it was created to uphold. Leaders promise to serve the people — yet spend their time serving donors, factions, and themselves.
And here is the question no one in Washington seems brave enough to ask:
How long can a democracy survive when its leaders stop listening — and when the citizens who elected them stop demanding accountability?
Families are paying more for groceries. Healthcare feels fragile. Schools struggle. Public trust in government is near historic lows — just 20% of Americans approve of Congress’s performance.
Yet many voters shrug when officials break the law, mislead the public, or abandon their constitutional duty. Some do not vote at all — then express outrage at the consequences of their own inaction.
Democracy cannot function when citizens tolerate corruption or remain silent.
Nothing illustrates this moral collapse more vividly than January 6 — the day the U.S. Capitol, the heart of our democracy, was attacked. Police officers were beaten. The peaceful transfer of power — our most sacred civic ritual — was threatened. Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the House through the crisis, while then‑Representative Mike Johnson reportedly worked behind the scenes with loyalists to keep President Trump in power. Some members of Congress minimized the attack; others defended the rioters. Millions of voters ignored who was responsible. The country watched in disbelief.
After his first impeachment, Senator Susan Collins said she believed President Trump had “learned his lesson.” But he hadn’t. He did it again — abused his power, incited violence, and continues to defy the rule of law.
And this time, he did so with the tacit support of the highest court in the country.
The Supreme Court has refused to enforce clear ethical standards, declined to recuse justices with glaring conflicts of interest, and delayed rulings that could have protected the integrity of our elections.
Meanwhile, those who tried to hold Trump accountable — leaders like former Rep. Liz Cheney and former Sen. Mitt Romney — were penalized. Cheney lost her leadership role and her seat. Romney chose not to run again, citing the toxic political climate.
Where was the courage to do the right thing?
Those who incited violence were later pardoned or had their sentences reduced. Their victims — the officers who were beaten, the staffers who hid in fear, the lawmakers who fled for their lives — were victimized again.
Our system of accountability is broken. And it is deeply frustrating.
Where are our checks and balances when the most powerful can lie, incite violence, and walk away untouched? Right now, Congress and the courts are failing to exercise those powers at all. Justices accept gifts from billionaires and refuse to recuse. Members of Congress skip votes and dodge oversight without consequence.
True service means listening to the people, conducting audits, acknowledging failures, and collaborating across party lines. Leaders must remember they legislate for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike — not for factions or donors. Transparency is not optional: budgets, proposals, and votes must be open to the public. Ethical standards must be enforced through codes of conduct, whistleblower protections, and independent oversight. Congress must use its checks and balances responsibly, safeguarding free and fair elections from interference. Leaders must cut out obstruction and partisan theater that wastes time and erodes trust. These are not radical demands — they are the basics of ethical leadership.
When citizens stop paying attention — or stop believing their voices matter — democracy suffers.
Trust collapses. Laws are bent. Courage is punished. And the people are left with leaders who serve themselves.
Accountability takes courage — and too many leaders lack it.
They fail to hold themselves accountable when they break promises, skip votes, or betray the public trust. They fail to hold each other accountable when colleagues lie, incite violence, or abuse power.
Instead of consequences, there are excuses. Instead of courage, there is complicity.
Accountability is not cruelty. It is clarity. It is the foundation of trust. And without it, democracy cannot survive.
Throughout my career in public education, accountability has made me stronger. Accepting responsibility for my failures was tough, but it paid off. It built trust. It built integrity. And it reminded me that leadership is not a performance — it’s a promise.
I wrote to my former representatives while they were still in office — urging them to vote in the best interest of our community. They didn’t. One knew she couldn’t run again — voters in our district had seen enough. Another lost public support for breaking promises. These were not partisan disagreements. They were failures of trust.
That’s why I check roll calls and track votes. I ask others to do the same — even family members in other states. But too often, they don’t. They complain, but they don’t engage.
This is how democracy erodes — not just through bad leadership, but through public disengagement.
Americans must not give up. We must pay attention. We must demand better — and reward those who lead with courage and conscience.
I understand why some people stay silent. In today’s climate, speaking up can be risky — especially in my state. Some threaten, intimidate, or try to silence voices that challenge power. But I write because this moment is too urgent to ignore.
I applaud my nephew in Georgia, who shows up at rallies, town halls, and meetings with leaders. He reminds me that courage is contagious. We don’t get discouraged. We know that our voices matter — for our children, our grandchildren, and the future of this country.
Silence is not an option.
Democracy demands participation. Accountability demands courage. And the future demands that we speak.
Call to Action
If you care about this country — speak up. Write your leaders. Check their votes. Share the truth. Hold them accountable. And never forget: democracy only works when we do.
Encourage leaders to compromise, collaborate, listen to the voices of the people, and hold themselves accountable for keeping their oath.
They want power. But it is time that Americans demand accountability.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership and health care justice.
U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani (L) during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House on November 21, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Yesterday’s meeting between Donald Trump and New York City's Mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani, was marked by an unexpected cordiality. Trump praised Mamdani’s “passion for his community” and called him “a very energetic young man with strong ideas,” while Mamdani, in turn, described Trump as “gracious” and “surprisingly open to dialogue.” The exchange was strikingly civil, even warm — a sharp departure from the months of hostility that had defined their relationship in the public eye.
That warmth stood in stark contrast to the bitter words exchanged before and after Mamdani’s election. Trump had dismissed him as a “radical socialist who wants to destroy America,” while Mamdani blasted Trump as “a corrupt demagogue who thrives on division.” Republican Senator Rick Scott piled on, branding Mamdani a “literal communist” and predicting Trump would “school” him at the White House. Representative Elise Stefanik went further, labeling him a “jihadist” during her gubernatorial campaign and, even after Trump’s praise, insisting that “if he walks like a jihadist… he’s a jihadist.” For Republicans who had invested heavily in demonizing Mamdani, Trump’s embrace left allies fuming and fractured, caught between loyalty to their leader and the hardline attacks they had once championed.
Surprisingly, Scott has not issued any follow-up statement after Trump’s conciliatory tone. In stark contrast, Stefanik doubled down, saying after the meeting, “We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. If he walks like a jihadist… he’s a jihadist.” Conservative activist Laura Loomer blasted Trump’s friendliness as “normalizing communism” and warned it could hurt GOP messaging in the 2026 midterms.
Trump’s cordiality toward Mamdani highlights a potential broader backlash among hardliners who saw his tone as a betrayal and a political liability heading into the fall elections. At the very least, Trump’s praise has fractured GOP messaging, with some Republicans openly disagreeing with him and warning of electoral fallout. The divide could come down to conflict between hardliners — who insist Mamdani is an existential threat and believe Trump’s friendliness risks alienating the base — and pragmatists, who argue that a softer tone could help peel away progressive critics and project statesmanship.
Of course, the strategic risks are many. If Republicans continue to send two conflicting messages — some demonizing Mamdani, others echoing Trump’s friendliness — the public will be left confused. The likely result is that the election of an ultra-liberal mayor in New York will no longer allow Republicans to use Mamdani as a foil to rally their supporters against Democrats.
This split underscores a deeper GOP challenge: Trump’s unpredictability regularly creates contradictions that throw Republicans off balance, undermining party discipline and exposing fractures that could widen as the 2026 campaign intensifies.
Polling consistently shows that Trump’s greatest vulnerability heading into 2026 is the public’s frustration with inflation and affordability — the very issues that were at the heart of Mamdani’s campaign. By striking a conciliatory tone with Mamdani, Trump may be attempting to reposition himself on economic concerns before they damage Republicans more broadly. In praising Mamdani’s focus on community and cost-of-living struggles, Trump could be signaling that he wants to co‑opt the affordability narrative, turning a potential Democratic strength into a bipartisan talking point under his banner.
Democratic reactions since the meeting have been equally telling. Many Democrats expressed surprise at Trump’s conciliatory tone, with some framing it as a rare moment of bipartisanship and others dismissing it as political theater. Progressive allies of Mamdani hailed the exchange as validation of his growing influence. At the same time, more centrist Democrats warned that Trump’s praise could be a tactical move to soften his image without changing his policies. In either case, Democrats appear eager to exploit the GOP’s internal divisions, casting Trump’s embrace of Mamdani as evidence of a party in disarray.
In trying to blunt Mamdani’s affordability message, Trump may have opened a new problem with voters worried about the cost of supporting a party that shifts with the wind. His gesture of magnanimity now risks being seen not as statesmanship, but as the emblem of a party at war with itself — led by a president whose opportunism is laid bare.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, September 11, 2025 in New York City.
In the earliest days of the Republic, Alexander Hamilton defended giving the president the exclusive authority to grant pardons and reprieves against the charge that doing so would concentrate too much power in one person’s hands. Reading the news of President Trump’s latest use of that authority to reward his motley crew of election deniers and misfit lawyers, I was taken back to what Hamilton wrote in 1788.
He argued that “The principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case to the Chief Magistrate is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well- timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall.”
“The dilatory process of convening the legislature, or one of its branches,” Hamilton continued, “for the purpose of obtaining its sanction to the measure, would frequently be the occasion of letting slip the golden opportunity.”
Never did Hamilton imagine that the Chief Magistrate would one day be the insurrectionist-in-chief and that he would use the clemency power to spare his fellow insurrectionists, people like Rudy Guiliani, Trump’s lawyer during the 2020 election fight; Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff; Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and John Eastman who played key roles in concocting and carrying out the scheme to keep Trump in power.
The president also granted clemency to “all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting activities, participation in or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of presidential electors … as well for any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 presidential election.”
MSNBC’s Hayes Brown gets it right when he says, “Trump has been moving to rewrite history, in effect declaring that there was nothing shady at all about his plotting.”
There is little citizens can do to prevent the president from abusing his clemency power. But it is the responsibility of everyone who values constitutional order to resist this effort to rewrite history. That means making sure that schools, libraries, and museums accurately convey the truth about what happened when the president and his allies conspired to overturn an election.
Before looking at Trump’s latest gambit to whitewash history and turn the story of an insurrection into a glorious affirmation of democracy, let me say more about Hamilton’s thoughts about the pardon power.
Hamilton had the difficult job of convincing his countrymen that it was better to give the president the prerogative that had heretofore been vested in monarchs instead of in the legislature or a council of wise people. As he argued, “Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”
Hamilton believed that giving the pardon power to a single person would encourage a “sense of responsibility” in its use. He hoped that “The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution…” in the president.
As smart as Hamilton was, I guess one cannot fault him for not anticipating that America would one day be led by someone like Donald Trump.
Having just lived through Shays Rebellion, an uprising in Massachusetts in response to a post-Revolutionary War debt crisis, Hamilton worried that treasonous sentiments in the populace would more likely be shared by the representatives of the people in Congress than by the president. He didn’t foresee a situation where a president like Trump would foster such sentiments in the people, as a way to hold onto power.
As the commentator, George Cassidy Payne notes, “Hamilton’s writings suggest that the pardon power should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances where the public interest is paramount.” It turned out that Hamilton did not think that George Washington’s first use of the pardon power in 1795, to spare participants in another domestic uprising, was one of those circumstances.
Hamilton’s hopes have informed the way others have understood the president’s clemency power. The Supreme Court has said that clemency is not a “private act of grace.” It is “part of the Constitutional scheme,” and should be used to further “the public welfare.”
Well, there is nothing about what the president did for Giuliani et al. that furthers “the public welfare,” despite protestations to the contrary. The pardons didn’t even offer much help to their recipients.
As the Washington Post explains, “(N)one of the more than 75 people listed has been charged with federal crimes, though several have been prosecuted in states including Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada for roles in the alleged scheme to submit fake electors during Congress’s ratification of the 2020 vote. As president, Trump has no authority to pardon people facing state-level charges.”
“Still,” the Post adds, “the clemency — granted to key figures who have faced years of scrutiny by local prosecutors, congressional committees and local bar associations — signaled Trump’s continued focus on relitigating his 2020 defeat and furthering false claims of widespread voter fraud in current elections.”
Recall the president’s earlier decision to pardon more than 1,500 people who participated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and you get a sense of Trump’s ambition to turn criminals into heroes while vilifying the Biden Administration. Karoline Leavitt, the president’s press secretary, made that clear when she said about those who received pardons, “These great Americans were persecuted and put through hell by the Biden Administration for challenging an election, which is the cornerstone of democracy….”
“Getting prosecuted for challenging results is something that happens in communist Venezuela, not the United States of America, and President Trump is putting an end to the Biden Regime’s communist tactics once and for all.”
In a statement accompanying the pardons, Edward Martin, who Trump appointed as the government’s Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department, expanded on Leavitt’s bogus claims. “For over 200 years, this nation held elections as our framers envisioned… whoever prevailed, citizens could be confident that their votes would count without dilution or diminishment.”
“This proud tradition died in 2020. For the first time in American history, partisan state and local officials relying on narrow exceptions for absentee voting and signature verification attempted to conduct a fully remote presidential election…. At the same time, biased media failed to accurately inform the American people of the unlawful actions taken to deprive our country of a free and fair election.”
Martin’s statement reads like a summary of President Trump’s greatest hits. It goes on for pages rehearsing baseless allegations of voting irregularity in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Mexico, and Nevada. It details the alleged failures of the Biden Justice Department to investigate fraud and misconduct in the 2020 election.
Martin defends the Trump campaign’s fake electors’ scheme, calling them by another name, “contingent electors.”
He argues that state-level prosecutions of the president’s co-conspirators are “Attempts by partisan state actors to shoehorn fanciful and concocted state law violations onto what are clearly federal constitutional obligations of the 2020 trump campaign.” Martin’s statement concludes that “a pardon recognizing the complete exoneration of the contingent electors and all who have been swept into this unjust vendetta against President Trump is appropriate and fully serves the interest of justice.”
The justice Martin speaks of is Trump-style justice. The president and his allies aim to utilize all the levers of the government, including pardons and the accompanying proclamations, to ensure that history will overlook the truth.
Such an effort has no place in a democracy. If citizens do their part, the president and his enablers will fail in their effort to portray what they did in 2020 as something other than an insurrection.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
From left, Marilyn Quayle, former U.S. Vice Presidents Al Gore and Mike Pence, Karen Pence, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former U.S. President George W. Bush, Laura Bush, former U.S. President Barack Obama, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, Melania Trump, U.S. President Joe Biden, first lady Jill Biden U.S. Vice President...
Like children, former presidents should be seen, but not heard. I say that with deep respect for the men who were privileged enough to serve as presidents of the United States and are alive today. Historically, we have not heard the repeated voices of former presidents during the term of another president, that is, until today. Call it respect for the position, the person, and yes, the American people.
We get one president at a time. It is not like a football game and the commentary shows after it, in which we can play the Monday morning quarterback and coach, constantly second-guessing decisions made by the team. The comments – “he should have done this” or “I would have done X” – are not needed or desired.
But there is much more that former presidents can do. In particular, they can work to strengthen their political party by raising money and sharing their insights and ideas. They could mentor rising talent within their party. But all of these things can be done where “they are seen, but not heard.”
Today, if they truly feel we are on the verge of losing our democracy and becoming a banana republic, they are best positioned to rally a movement to convene a constitutional convention. Article five of our Constitution states that “two-thirds of state legislatures can apply for a national convention to propose amendments.” Former presidents have the name recognition, clout, and ability to raise the money to make this a reality.
Once a convention has been convened to amend the Constitution, to make it better, make it stronger, make it “king proof,” then the former presidents would have truly helped our nation.
But for former presidents to just give “old and tired” speeches and throw rocks on occasion is beneath them and can be counterproductive. They should think “outside the box” instead, and create a new lane.
For example, they could put an end to future federal government shutdowns by pushing to adopt an amendment that would penalize the president, vice president and every member of Congress if they do not pass a budget on time and complete all government funding bills. We could fine them 25% of their adjusted gross income and we will never have another shutdown again.
Granted, it is tough to listen to President Donald Trump speaking and acting like a king. He often shows no respect for our institutions – including Congress and the federal courts as he easily holds the dubious distinction of being the most litigious president in U.S. history. He gives new meaning to the term “bully pulpit.” We have and probably never will see another president as brazen as Trump.
Heck, I remember then-candidate Trump saying, and I paraphrase, that he could “do harm” to someone in the middle of New York’s Fifth Avenue and get away with it. I saw it as hyperbole, but today… well, I do not know.
When a president relishes “just killing people” in reference to more than a dozen strikes on small defenseless boats near the coast of Venezuela and insisting that he can do so without seeking a declaration of war vote from Congress, it is more than disturbing. These boats may be running afoul of the law but instead of killing people, there is a justice system and international laws that we prize as Americans.
So, today it is killing people on small boats in the ocean who are allegedly involved in drug trafficking, and tomorrow it “could” be the random killing of Americans allegedly involved in drug trafficking in our cities, all without due process. That is not the America I know and love.
On the more mundane level, there is no doubt that there are many reasons for even dead presidents to be turning over in their graves. Many, if they could shed tears, would cry many due to any part of the White House being destroyed – like we have witnessed in recent days with Trump’s demolition of the East Wing, all done without any consultation with Congress.
Of grave concern are the following:
1. A president who can turn America’s neighbor to the North, Canada, one of the U.S.’s closest trading partners and prior best friend, into a foe due to his tariff demands, and Trump’s inane rhetoric about wanting to annex the country.
2. A president who travels the world while an impotent Congress is AWOL and while 42 million Americans are on the brink of losing food assistance.
Still, I say to the living former presidents that they should be seen (if they care to), but not heard.
There are numerous reasons for this, but I do not want to disparage any of the men who served honorably in the toughest job in the world. It would simply be a “cheap shot,” and I refused to stoop that low.
Suffice it to say, however, that I will repeat a familiar dictum that should hopefully suffice – “He who lives in glass houses should not throw any stones.”
None of the former presidents were universally loved and many were resented by nearly half, if not the majority, of Americans when they left office. Some of their acts as president only conjure up bad memories. Bad mouthing by former presidents also allows the incumbent to blame all the country’s woes on them, and allows the incumbent to make the case that he is the savior, the one cleaning up messes left by their predecessors. Nearly all former presidents over the decades have understood the aforementioned fact.
Lastly, as a former president you are uniquely qualified to know what would cause a president to change his behavior or direction on policy. My suggestion is a “no confidence” vote of the state legislatures which would cause a wayward president to “slow down” a bit. No president would like to hold this infamous and dubious distinction not given to any of his predecessors that X number of state houses and state senates would express the opinion of the people via a no confidence vote.
Thus, former presidents are not like children. They are far more knowledgeable, and some have admirable talents. On the other hand, children have former presidents beat in other areas. Children are much “cuter” than former presidents and far less likely to irritate half the country, just their parents from time to time.
Gary Franks served three terms as a congressman from Connecticut’s 5th District. He was the first Black conservative elected to Congress and first Black Republican elected to the House in nearly 60 years. Host: Podcast "We Speak Frankly" www.garyfranksphilanthropy.org
