Today's #ListenFirst Friday video focuses on the importance of overcoming political divides and coming together to combat climate change.
Video: #ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
#ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
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 concrete building under cloudy sky during daytime
Photo by Harold Mendoza on Unsplash
They Want Power. We Need Accountability.
Dec 01, 2025
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
white concrete building under cloudy sky during daytime
Photo by Harold Mendoza on Unsplash
They Want Power. We Need Accountability.
Dec 01, 2025
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
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.
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Hardliners vs. Loyalists: Republicans Divide Over Mamdani Moment
Nov 23, 2025
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, September 11, 2025 in New York City.
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Trump's Clemency for Giuliani et al is Another Effort to Whitewash History and Damage Democracy
Nov 23, 2025
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.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More