In this edition of #ListenFirstFriday, the 17-year-old founder of YAP Politics discusses efforts to bridge the polarizations between political affiliations.
Video: #ListenFirstFriday Yap Politics
#ListenFirst Friday Yap Politics
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Latest news
Read More
U.S. Deaf athletes celebrated at the Opening Ceremony of the 25th Summer Deaflympics on November 15, 2025, in Tokyo, Japan.
(Hugh Carey, USA Deaf Sports Federation)
The USOPC Ought to Reassess the Ted Stevens Act
Oct 10, 2026
Last month was National Deaf Awareness Month.
It is a time to raise awareness of Deaf culture and language and to advocate for the rights and inclusion of Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals.
Since 1997, we have celebrated National Deaf Awareness Month every September.
Despite nearly thirty years of promoting Deaf Awareness Month, Deaf activists' unwavering dedication remains truly inspiring. We believe they still understand the frustration USA Deaflympians feel.
The most disappointing moment of 2025 for our Deaflympians was the lack of national news media coverage of the 2025 Summer Deaflympics in Tokyo, Japan, held November 15 to 26. Despite Team USA bringing home 36 medals and competing against 81 countries, major news outlets (outside of YouTube) ran no on-air reports or feature articles during or after the Games. By comparison, the Olympics and Paralympics consistently receive extensive daily coverage and athlete profiles across television and online media. This absence limits public awareness and recognition of the Deaflympics in the United States.
Therefore, Congress and the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) ought to reassess the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 1998 (the “Ted Stevens Act”) to include the Deaflympics.
Four Reasons to Include the Deaflympics
No. 1 - Consistency with the Olympic Movement: The IOC fully recognizes the Deaflympics; therefore, U.S. law must do the same.
Law: 36 U.S.C. § 220503(2) is a provision of the Ted Stevens Act that requires the USOPC to have the statutory mandate to “coordinate and develop amateur athletic activity in the United States, directly related to international amateur athletic competition.”
Fact: Since 1924, the Deaflympics have been the world’s second-oldest Olympic-style event, following the Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has officially sanctioned the Deaflympics since 1955. However, the 1998 expansion of the Ted Stevens Act explicitly mandated USOPC governance over the Olympic and Paralympic Games but omitted the Deaflympics. In 2001, the IOC granted the International Committee of Sports for the Deaf (ICSD) the right to use the term Deaflympics (formerly the World Games for the Deaf). The USOPC does not officially recognize the Deaflympics, primarily because of governance autonomy and the specific statutory language of the Ted Stevens Act.
Recommendation for Congress: The USA Deaf Sports Federation (USADSF) and the ICSD strongly support including the Deaflympics under the USOPC, viewing it as essential to equity and recognition. The USOPC has neither publicly opposed nor supported such inclusion but has cited legal and structural reasons for maintaining the status quo. Lawmakers should expect broad support from Deaf advocacy groups and some international bodies, though those focused on preserving existing governance distinctions may resist.
No. 2 - Equity for Disabled Athletes: Deaflympians are the only Olympic-style athletes not included in the Ted Stevens Act
Law: 36 U.S.C. § 220503(13) authorizes the USOPC to “encourage and assist amateur athletic programs and competitions for amateur athletes with disabilities”.
Fact: The USOPC does not officially include purely Deaf athletes in its primary Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DE&I) frameworks.
Recommendation for Congress: In the 277-page 2024 Final Report of the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics (CSUSOP), the Commission recommends that “Congress should also further study the challenges faced by deaf and hard-of-hearing athletes and proposals to integrate deaf sports into the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic movement.”
No. 3 - Congressional Intent of Inclusion: Congress intended to include all Olympic-style sports without exception.
Law: Under the Ted Stevens Act, Congress granted the USOPC exclusive jurisdiction over Olympic-style sports.
Fact: Excluding the Deaflympics from the Ted Stevens Act would not legally require the USOPC to track Deaf athletes or integrate them into its broader equity, resource allocation, and organizational compliance mandates.
Recommendation for Congress: Now is a pivotal moment for Congress to act to address these inequities and prevent another generation of Deaf athletes from being lost to systemic neglect.
No. 4 - Leadership and Legacy: Updating the Act honors Ted Stevens’s legacy of fairness and inclusion.
Law: The 1998 Amendment officially renamed the law the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.
Fact: Senator Stevens introduced Senate Bill 2430 (1998) on the Senate floor on May 22, 1998, and stated:
“World Games for the Deaf--It has been suggested that both the bill and the Committee report which eventually accompanies the bill include language in support of the World Games for the Deaf and of deaf athletes. It is anticipated that this issue will be addressed by consensus before the bill becomes enacted.”
Yet that language never made it into the law.
Recommendation for Congress: The Ted Stevens Act could be amended as follows:
- In 36 U.S.C. Section 220502(a), insert “Deaflympic Games” after each instance of “Paralympic Games” to ensure the USOPC’s responsibilities explicitly include the Deaflympics.
- In Section 220501(b), add the following definition: (10) The term “Deaflympic Games” means the international athletic competitions sanctioned by the International Committee of Sports for the Deaf (ICSD) for athletes who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing.
- In Section 220503, add: “The corporation [USOPC] shall support, fund, and promote the Deaflympics and ensure that Deaf athletes have equal access to resources, training, and representation as Olympians and Paralympians.”
The final 1977 report of the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports (PCOS) recommended recognizing athletic events for individuals with disabilities as legitimate sports competitions for elite, highly trained athletes rather than dismissing them as mere therapy or rehabilitation.
The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 required the U.S. Olympic Committee to “...encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletic programs and competition for handicapped individuals, including, where feasible, the expansion of opportunities for meaningful participation by handicapped individuals in athletic competition programs for able-bodied individuals...”
Additionally, U.S. Deaflympic medalists are ineligible for the USOPC Operation Gold cash stipends awarded to medalists.
Therefore, Congress ought to amend the Ted Stevens Act to explicitly recognize the Deaflympics as an official part of the United States Olympic movement, ensure that Deaflympians receive the same support and representation as Olympians and Paralympians, and require the USOPC to fund and support Deaf athletes. The amended language ought to reference the “Deaflympics” and establish equal access to training, competition opportunities, and promotional activities.
It’s time for Congress and the USOPC to include the Deaflympics in the Act.
Howard Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
John Kennedy display a sign accusing former Special Counsel Jack Smith of meeting with Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Sept. 29, 2026, in Washington, D.C. The committee is holding the hearing to examine Smith’ s probe into Donald Trump.
(Getty Images)
Schmitt’s smoking gun backfires on him
Oct 03, 2026
Tuesday was supposed to be a big day for Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, a little-known first-term junior Senator whose main claim to fame thus far was the 25 lawsuits he filed against President Joe Biden’s administration in a span of 20 months while Missouri’s attorney general.
But congressional hearings have long been a place not to do actual legislating but to make a name for oneself, and Schmitt was going to take his opportunity on Tuesday, when he got to question former Special Counsel Jack Smith in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Earlier that morning a short news item — just 80 words — popped up on Axios. The headline:
“Sen. Eric Schmitt Is Drawing Buzz as a Possible Vance VP in 2028.”
The body of the story, in part, read:
“First-term Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) — who was a tough-on-crime state attorney general, and now is vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee — has grown close to Vice President Vance and is seen as a top prospect to become a potential 2028 running mate.
We hear the VP views Schmitt, 51, as trustworthy, intelligent, articulate and a deft political operator.”
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about how that glowing — and unsourced — story ended up where it did on the morning of this hearing, but I think it’s safe to assume it wasn’t a coincidence.
Hours later, Schmitt was in the room where it happened, joining his fellow Republican lawmakers in punishing Smith for pursuing charges around Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference and his handling of classified documents.
And the theatrics were amped up to 11. Sen. John Kennedy had already told Smith “You make me want to throw up in my mouth.” Sen. Ted Cruz proclaimed, “Javert from Les Mis would look at you with astonishment.” Sen. Darline Graham used her time to accuse Smith of bullying her late brother, Lindsey Graham.
Your taxpayer dollars at work, folks.
But anyway, this was all leading up to the big moment, when Schmitt was going to drop the smoking gun — alleged texts from someone in Smith’s office showing he was somewhere he shouldn’t have been, and about to do something he shouldn’t have done.
Except he wasn’t. Smith wasn’t in Atlanta in February 2024 for an Atlanta Hawks game. He wasn’t in Atlanta at all. Instead, he’d been at a women’s college basketball game between the University of Maryland and the University of Iowa. Apparently, Schmitt confused the Hawks with the Hawkeyes.
It was an implosion of delicious proportions for the left, but at a time when Republicans and Trump are drowning in a midterm election hellscape of their own making, it also exposed just how desperate MAGA was for a win — any win.
Before Schmitt could finish imploding, MAGA media had already posted to socials their congratulatory dunks on Smith, unaware that the moment they’d been promised hadn’t gone the way it was supposed to.
Fox’s Sean Hannity deleted his post wherein “Schmitt puts Jack Smith on the spot,” and Benny Johnson deleted his (which misspelled the senator’s name) saying “Schmidt just CAUGHT Jack Smith perjuring himself.”
The whole day, it seemed, from the Axios post in the morning, to the influencer posts in the afternoon, was designed to give the MAGA base some much-needed red meat amid a sea of bad poll numbers.
But it seems Republicans don’t have their priorities straight. They’ve given up on actual policy wins that could have helped stave off what may just be a blue monsoon in November, wins that were promised to voters two years ago. All they’ve got left are parlor tricks and subterfuge — and they can’t deliver on that, either.
It was a moment that was meant to go viral, and it did — but for all the wrong reasons.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Pool/Getty Images
How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions
Oct 01, 2026
A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.
These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.
Despite the facts of the matter, Trump continues his assault on our institutions through his words and actions. For decades, Primetime presidential speeches have been used to speak directly to the public during wars, economic crises, and moments of national grief. These addresses can be reassuring. They can make government action easier to understand and give people a sense that their leaders are responding to an emergency.
Ronald Reagan used television to project optimism and national confidence during the Cold War, a period of large paranoia and uncertainty. George W. Bush’s speeches after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 helped create an early sense of unity even across the world, although later questions about the Iraq War damaged trust in government claims. Barack Obama often used his national addresses to explain major policy decisions and encourage civic participation.
Trump constantly fails to do many of those positives. His primetime speeches heavily deepen the division this country has been experiencing in the last 20 years in particular; the president encourages people to believe that elections, courts, or civil servants are inherently corrupt, which then closes the door for the public to accept outcomes they do not like. That problem has never been confined to one party or one president. Democratic principles depend on more than laws to keep them accountable. They depend on a shared belief that institutions can be challenged, criticized, and improved upon without being dismissed as illegitimate whenever they produce an unfavorable result. No, that does not mean presidents should avoid criticism.
Yes, government institutions should be questioned, investigated, and reformed when they fail. But mindful criticism is most useful when it is specific, evidence-based, and paired with a realistic solution. Trump leans more on cynicism, whereas he displays much more personal bias, ego, and mental rigidity.
[INTERVIEW SECTION????]
Historically, primetime presidential speeches strengthen democracy when they help Americans understand a challenging topic and encourage them to participate at the local and federal levels. They weaken democracy when they turn routine political disagreement into a reason to reject the legitimacy of systems and institutions altogether.
For voters, the goal to aspire towards is knowing the difference between hearing and listening. The care that you put into analyzing these speeches is what separates the two. A president’s words matter, but they should never be accepted without questions: What evidence supports this claim? Who can verify it? Does the proposed solution protect democratic participation, or does it make power less accountable?
Those questions are not partisan. They are part of what it means to be an informed citizen.
Shon Eric Hernandez is a Fulcrum fellow and MDC contributor. He can be reached at shondesil06@gmail.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Brain science explains why voters reward charisma over results — and why the leaders who "fix" the most get credit for the least. A behavioral look at elections.
alvaro gonzalez/Getty Images
The Résumé Should Outvote the Smile
Sep 21, 2026
There's an old joke about a couple who finally solved years of arguing over decisions. "Since you're the man of the house," the wife said, "you handle the big things -- our stance on foreign wars, who we send to the Senate. I'll take care of the small stuff: groceries, the mortgage, where we live, what we eat." The husband agreed happily, certain he had won the better half of the deal. A few years later he realized the trade had gone entirely the other way. He held forth on geopolitics at dinner parties while his wife quietly ran every detail that actually touched his life: what he ate, where he lived, how his money was spent. What looked like ultimate authority was, in practice, near-total abdication over the things that shaped his days.
Voters make the same trade, and pay for it the same way. We keep hiring leaders for the qualities we would want in a spouse -- warmth, charm, a commanding voice, the sense that they see us -- instead of the qualities we would want in a mechanic: someone who can find what is broken and fix it before the whole system fails. We evaluate candidates the way we choose intimate partners, not the way we hire people to run complex, high-stakes systems.
A Brain Built for the Wrong Timescale
This is not just a cultural blind spot. It has a biological driver. Brain-imaging research over the past two decades has linked our response to an inspiring speaker with a fast release of dopamine and oxytocin, the same chemical reward system engaged by a great meal, a new romance, or a win at the slot machine. A charismatic leader delivers that hit in real time, on stage, in a two-minute clip that circulates for days. Studies of split-second judgment go further still: shown a candidate's face for less than a second, with no policy information at all, people guess election winners correctly roughly seven times out of ten, based purely on a snap read of competence and warmth.
Good policy does not work on that clock. A tax reform, an infrastructure project, or a shift in interest rates typically takes twelve to eighteen months before its effects show up in the data, and years longer before ordinary voters feel them in daily life. The Federal Reserve itself estimates that the full impact of a single interest-rate change can take up to two years to reach the broader economy. By the time results arrive, the brain has already moved its emotional credit to whoever gave the most recent good speech, whether or not that person had anything to do with the actual work. Slow, structural improvement carries no dopamine spike, so it goes uncredited. Fast, emotional performance carries a large one, so it gets over-credited. The mismatch is not a character flaw in any one voter. It is a design feature of a brain built for a much smaller, much slower world.
When the Audition Beats the Résumé
This mismatch explains why screen presence so often beats governing experience at the ballot box. In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California recall election with under half the vote in a field of more than a hundred candidates, arriving with zero governing experience and a résumé built entirely in front of a camera. He left office seven years later with the state carrying a budget deficit in the tens of billions of dollars, a gap that outlasted his tenure and shaped California's finances for years afterward. Ronald Reagan followed a similar route into the same office in 1966, defeating the incumbent governor by nearly a million votes on the strength of his screen presence and radio-honed delivery, not his record in public administration, of which he had none. His later political career is remembered as substantively consequential, which complicates any tidy conclusion. Charisma and competence are not always opposed. They are simply poorly correlated at the exact moment people cast a ballot, which is precisely when it matters most.
The clearest case of all sits in Tamil Nadu, India. In 1977, film star M. G. Ramachandran, known across the state as MGR, was elected chief minister after three decades of building a screen persona as the untouchable defender of the poor. His fans did not distinguish the role from the man. When he died in December 1987 at age 70, roughly one million people flooded Chennai's streets for his funeral, some standing in line for over a day. By multiple contemporary press accounts, around 30 grieving fans took their own lives in the days after his death, unable to process the loss. That grief was never about tax policy or administrative competence. It was the sudden loss of a one-sided emotional attachment as real, to the people who felt it, as losing a parent.
Charisma Is a Luxury Good
The divide runs along economic lines too, and this is the part most commentary on charisma leaves out. Voters with enough material security to treat politics as a form of entertainment can afford to prioritize a leader's decorum, stage presence, and rhetorical polish. For the much larger share of any electorate whose week is defined by grocery prices, rent, fuel costs, and job security, charm is an expensive luxury they cannot afford to indulge. They need competent mechanics who can diagnose and repair broken systems, not a warm and reassuring presence who makes them feel better about a system that keeps failing them. When the roof is leaking, you do not hire the contractor with the best smile. You hire the one who actually stops the leak, even if he is short with you on the phone.
Evolution built us for small tribes of a few hundred people, where a warm, confident face reliably signaled a trustworthy ally worth following into danger, and where the entire consequence of a bad choice was visible within days. That heuristic misfires today, in a world of roughly 8.2 billion people governed by institutions too large, too specialized, and too interconnected for any one charismatic figure to run on instinct and stage presence alone. The scale has changed by many orders of magnitude. Our wiring has not.
What Breaks the Spell
None of this means charisma is worthless, or that voters are foolish for responding to it. Communication matters; a leader who cannot explain a plan cannot build support for it. The fix is not to prize dullness over eloquence. It is to separate the two judgments that charisma tends to fuse into one: does this person make me feel confident, and has this person actually delivered results before. Structured evaluation helps here in the same way it helps in hiring for any other high-stakes role: a specific record of past performance, checked against verifiable outcomes, weighs more than a stage presence, no matter how persuasive that presence feels in the room.
We keep choosing leaders for spouse-like qualities and then act surprised when we get senator-like failures. The bill for that confusion comes due in stalled reforms, wasted budgets, and a public that trusts government less with every cycle, in country after country. Fixing it does not require voters to stop feeling anything at the ballot box; feeling is not the enemy. It requires one honest substitution, repeated at every election: stop asking who you would most want to have dinner with, and start asking who you would trust to fix what is actually broken. Until we make that substitution a habit rather than an exception, we will keep overpaying for charisma and underinvesting in the competence that actually improves lives. The résumé should outvote the smile.
Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D. is Director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking. A former R&D executive holding 30 U.S. patents, he focuses on the analysis of human behavior, public health, and global affairs, drawing on an interdisciplinary background. He published in multiple RealClear platforms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Fulcrum, The Humanist, AFRO American, South Asia Monitor (on editorial board, and host of a show), and others.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home