Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Healthy governance requires commitment to these five faiths

Opinion

View of the Capitol through columns
Grant Faint/Getty Images
Stein is an organizational and political strategist who has worked with dozens of for-profit, not-for-profit and political and public sector organizations over the past 50 years. He currently serves as a researcher/writer, consultant and champion of the work of cross-partisan cultural and political organizations and initiatives.

The continuing disintegration of political cohesion in democracies throughout the world, the rise of authoritarian populism within democracies and the increasing suppressions of entrenched authoritarian regimes have created a growing crisis of failing governance around the globe.

The real-world turmoil and trauma driving our governing dysfunctions — political strife and economic inequalities, pandemics, floods, fires, debilitating storms, racial reckonings, and dehumanization of "others" — are bedeviling virtually every economic and political system on every continent throughout the world.

Representative democracies, including most specifically our own constitutional republic, cannot reform our cultural, economic and political institutions to better serve the needs and interests of our citizens and to meet the exigencies of the 21st century until we define a collective purpose and shared meaning that transcends ideology and special interests.

Narrow purpose, party dogmas and rigid ideologies of certainty are endemic to modern cultures, belief systems and political narratives. Spread relentlessly by hyperpartisan, for-profit communications companies and social media, our prejudices, biases and hatreds fester in the body politic like a metastatic cancer.

However, a healthy, constitutionally ordained representative republic cannot forever endure the toxins of resentment and vengeance without forfeiting the ideals of liberty, justice and opportunity for all.

Humans cannot thrive, much less survive, without a conscious, courageous and enduring declaration of faith in ourselves and our institutions.

Faith is not simply a religious precept; it is the foundation of human dignity and mutual responsibility. It is the means by which our species finds the will to hope and dream, accepts one another in spite of our differences and discovers common purpose in collective identity.

Faith requires a leap from logic; a belief in the future we have not yet seen or experienced. It begins as a figment of imagination. It manifests as a willingness to entertain affirmative human possibilities.

In these fraught times, it is worth trying to discern the elementary "faiths" that define 21st century core beliefs that are necessary to advance classic liberal democracy and combat authoritarianism in America and throughout the world.

The exigencies of the 21st century require a set of beliefs that transcend ideology, tribalism, nationalism, party and special interests. For Americans, this means conscious commitment to five basic faiths that advance an affirmative view of human nature and enable healthy self-governance:

  • Faith in one another: belief that America's diversity, like diversity within all plant and animal species, is both a survival strength and a precondition for human thriving. As one of the most diverse countries on earth, America's continuing struggles for inclusion, cultural and social integration and political cohesion have been a central feature of our nation's experience since its founding. Only through respect for the dignity of each person and faith in Jesus' directive to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can human beings discover our mutual interests, common purposes and shared destinies.
  • Faith in our Constitution: belief in the ideals enshrined in our Constitution that liberty, justice and opportunity for all are the foundations of human creativity, security and prosperity; and that no matter how long or hard the struggle to realize these ideals has been, and will continue to be, we have abiding faith in our collective ability to perfect ourselves and advance our collective interests.
  • Faith in government: belief that a constitutional republic form of self-governance, rule of law, and fair and free elections ensure a government capable of functioning by, for and of the people. It also includes believing that this system is best capable of reforming itself and protecting against capture by narrow ideologies and special interests.
  • Faith in free markets: belief that civil and economic freedoms are inextricable liberties and the bedrock of our constitutional republic form of government. Innovation, capital formation, fair and free markets, wealth creation, and business success create engines of dynamic change, much of the work that inspires human productivity, and the profits, if fairly distributed, that can ensure prosperity for the greatest number. Democracies that enable, and appropriately harness the excesses of, free markets will optimize liberty, justice and opportunity for all.
  • Faith in global interdependence: belief that our global challenges require whole-world solutions that are dependent on global cooperation. Adversaries and allies alike contribute to our global problems and must share responsibility for addressing them effectively. Innovating and empowering means, methods, and mechanisms for agreeing on the dimensions of common challenges, framing cooperative solutions and accepting mutual responsibilities for their amelioration is a 21st century imperative. We have become an interdependent world in which acceptance of our common interests and destinies is central to human, national and global survival and salvation.

Faith is the essential building block for constructive interpersonal relationships and productive institutional cooperation. Our collective abilities to thrive in the years and decades to come are dependent on restoring the values of truth, trust, reason and civility in our human interactions. It is in our self- and mutual interests to find the will, courage and strategies necessary to have abiding faith in ourselves, our institutions, our communities and our nation.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less