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.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
money in politics
erhui1979/Getty Images
Rekindling The Founders’ Hopes
Jul 25, 2026
America was born out of rebellion against oligarchy.
- Priya Satia, Stanford University
When a majority of citizens disagree with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.
- Benjamin Page, Martin Gilens, 2014
Last year, voters strongly rejected Viktor Orban’s authoritarian Hungarian government, rife with corruption. Economic stagnation played a role, but corruption was the decisive factor.
America could be next. The decades of pay-to-play corruption at the center of America’s political system have delegitimized its democracy. Except in individual instances, however, corruption has rarely proven sufficiently potent at the ballot box to be determinant. That dynamic will be sorely tested in 2026 thanks to President Trump.
The Irony of America’s Oligarchic Governance
The Founding Fathers would be gravely disheartened at the state of their grand democratic experiment after 250 years.
American politics in recent decades has largely been the domain of oligarchs. It has devolved ironically to resemble the elitist political and economic system that inspired the Revolutionary War - a replica of the despised England the colonists first raised arms against at Lexington and Concord in 1775.
True, colonials believed their just cause was the rejection of an oppressive monarchy. In reality, the offending practices and policies blamed on the figurehead King George III - the tariff on Indian tea, for instance - were dictated by a Parliament dominated by oligarchs - nabobs like Sir Robert Clive and Cecil Rhodes. The 1688-89 Glorious Revolution, which deposed James II, also stripped the English monarchy of absolute power. Political, social, and economic power had abruptly migrated from the monarchy to the wealthy oligarchs who dominated Parliament– a transition that “dramatically curbed kingly authority.”
Like the England of 1775, America’s policies today are largely dictated by wealthy oligarchs like Elon Musk, many of whom share President Trump’s hostility toward taxes to fund social program spending. Charles Koch, for instance, has lobbied for cuts similar to Trump’s 2025 tax law, removing 4 million from food assistance and eliminating Medicaid health insurance for an estimated 17 million of America’s poorest, forcing rural hospitals to close.
Reduced food and health care for the least advantaged is just one facet of the consequences of America’s pay-to-play political system. Republicans, beginning with Goldwater and later Reagan, fully embraced pay-to-play, genuflecting to the wealthy who still dominate their Party. Partisan loyalists appointed to the Supreme Court have legitimized the practice, ruling, rather mystically, out of whole cloth, that money is constitutionally protected political speech. We are all entitled to a corner soapbox. But it seems you are also entitled to drown out my voice a million-fold, wallet permitting. They have even ruled that the legal fiction of corporations enjoys those same speech rights, ruling in Citizens United that ethereal political donors can be incorporeal wallets.
Political scientists term America’s faux democracy a functional oligarchy like Egypt or Turkey, or 18th-century England. But most American men and women view it simply as corruption - enabling the wealthy to profit by stacking the economy “against people like me.”
A Brennan Center survey in May 2026, for instance, found that 90% of independent voters believe “corruption is responsible for policies that benefit billionaires and big corporations at the expense of the American people.” This belief has become increasingly evident since 2017. Some 57% of respondents to a March NBC poll, for instance, believed that the rich and powerful are above the law – corruption that has grown worse in “the past five or ten years,” fostering a second Gilded Age.
This erosion of America’s democratic integrity has been recognized abroad: U.S. democracy fell on Transparency International’s government Corruption Index to a record low 29th globally in 2025 from 16th in 2015, below authentic democracies that limit the role of money in politics.
The Corruption Awakening
One important reason for growing sensitivity to corruption is rising American income inequality - the record surge in wealth at the top coming at the expense of workers. Real hourly compensation - wages and benefits - has virtually stagnated for the lowest earning 80% (111 million) of nonfarm salaried workers since the Reagan administration. (You may want to read that again.) Pay-to-play politics permits employers to offshore jobs while weakening unions, labor rights, and antitrust enforcement. That enabled employers to raise profits by capping workers’ pay, thereby doubling the national income share of the top 1% since 1979.
A second factor has been blatant global grifting by Trump – a Boeing 747 from Qatar and tungsten mines in Kazakhstan – corruption in flagrant violation of the Constitution’s Articles I and II emoluments clauses.
A Political Corruption Edge?
Only rarely has corruption provided a partisan electoral advantage to either political party. But this may be one of those moments, with surveys finding that corruption offers Democrats an electoral opportunity in 2026 and 2028.
An extensive 2025 analysis drawn from a panel of nearly 2000 voters, for instance, found that independent voters view Republican Party office holders as more corrupt than Democrats. These swing voters believe Republican politicians are nearly 30% more likely to be “very corrupt” than Democrats (29% of independents believe Democratic politicians are “very corrupt” while 37% believe Republicans are). Moreover, 38% of these independent panelists believed that the wealthy have the “most influence” on the Republican Party, while only 20% believe they have the most influence on Democrats. And a study of campaign spending by billionaires in 2024 found they favored Republicans by at least 2.5:1 - and that excludes their hidden dark money spending. The margin in seven pivotal 2024 Senate races was at least 7:1.
Restoring Democratic Legitimacy
Pivotal independent voters have come to believe that political corruption is widespread, multi-faceted, deeply embedded, and adversely affecting household economics. The 2026 and especially the 2028 elections offer them opportunities to rebuild the legitimacy of American democracy.
Should reformers prevail at the ballot box, a top priority is upgrading the Supreme Court that has championed pay-to-play for decades. Congress and the President can reform the Supreme Court by term-limiting justices or by imposing judicial jurisdiction limits as permitted by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. But opposition will be fierce, led by billionaires determined to preserve the central role of money in American politics and their dominance.
Voters can rekindle the Founders’ high hopes for democracy in the coming elections. The question is whether the corruption issue has sufficiently ripened and economic conditions have become sufficiently dire that democratic reformers can attain a trifecta at the polls in 2028.
George Tyler is a former deputy assistant treasury secretary and World Bank official. He is the author of books including Billionaire Democracy and What Went Wrong.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on July 21, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Members of the Trump administration appeared before the committee to request supplemental funding amid a recent escalation in the war with Iran.
(Getty Images)
Not good, but we can’t just quit Iran now
Jul 25, 2026
While President Trump threatens to destroy “ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT” in Iran for every shot they take at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, Americans back home are hoping and praying this folly of a war wraps up yesterday.
Strikes over the weekend brought the death toll for U.S. troops to 18, with 100 more injured; the Strait of Hormuz is essentially closed again, with Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen threatening to block other oil routes; gas prices are up 16 cents from the average a week ago, 88 cents higher than last year and $1.04 higher than the week before the war, per Politico; and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth admitted in a hearing on Tuesday that the conflict had already cost U.S. taxpayers $37.5 billion — as he asked for $67 billion more.
All of this while no one — not Hegseth, not Trump, not Secretary of State Marco Rubio or Vice President JD Vance — can tell voters how or when we plan to exit this war having achieved anything of long-term significance. It’s the very definition of a quagmire.
Meanwhile, Iran and its dangerous proxies are clearly playing the long game, hoping that upcoming American midterm elections force the U.S. to exit the war we started without accomplishing a single one of our stated objectives — a very real possibility.
Trump is posturing, as he’s wont to do, insisting he’s not influenced by the calendar. “I don’t view it as ‘Gee, we’re having an election in a period of time,’ ” he said on Tuesday. “No, the election — I can’t think about that having to do with this. I think people are very impressed.”
Not so, as a majority of Americans now say the war in Iran was the wrong decision, while a belief that the war is worth the economic cost among Trump’s MAGA base has dropped to just over a third — a 13 point drop in two months.
Voters, Republican lawmakers up for reelection, and the Iranian regime — all united in their hope that Trump can be pushed to the exits by the election politics of an unpopular war.
But for once, I hope Trump isn’t bluffing.
We shouldn’t have entered this war, and we most definitely shouldn’t have entered it without a clear strategy. But here we are, and it’s now our job to leave it responsibly.
What does that mean?
Unfortunately, it means admitting we likely can’t make good on a number of the grandiose promises Trump made to justify the war in the first place. It seems we’ve given up on the idea of regime change and liberating the Iranian people, to name two. But we can and should pursue other objectives that would leave the U.S., our allies, and the region better off.
First and foremost, we must leave with verifiable restraints on and multilateral monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program. If it’s unrealistic or costly to retrieve Iran’s buried uranium cache, we must secure a non-conditional non-proliferation agreement — with teeth.
We must leave having guaranteed unfettered access to shipping routes, from the Strait of Hormuz to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Our European, Asian and Gulf allies must be integrated into a joint coalition to protect international shipping lanes from repeated extortion attempts.
And we must leave our regional allies, like Kuwait, protected from retaliatory strikes through binding non-aggression commitments and a long-term off-shore carrier strike group presence to prevent a security vacuum.
This is a far cry from what Trump promised with his ill-advised and ill-prepared blunder of a war — and in the case of Hormuz, it’s merely restoring access we already had before the war. But it’s the least we should accept in our retreat.
As much as we want to get out now, we owe it to our allies, our Gulf partners, our troops — and the Iranian people — to leave this mess of our own making with something to show for it.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
white concrete building during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash
2026 Democracy Awards Honor Excellence Across Congressional Offices
Jul 19, 2026
The Congressional Management Foundation's Democracy Awards recognize congressional offices that demonstrate excellence in public service. While the headlines often focus on conflict, this year's winners remind us that strong leadership, thoughtful management, and a commitment to continuous improvement strengthen both Congress and the constituents it serves
Constituent service remains one of Congress's core functions, and this year's winners of the Best of Constituent Service Award demonstrate that excellence requires exceptional organizations and internal infrastructure. For example, Senator Adam Schiff's office (D-CA) streamlined processes by creating online forms for casework authorization and privacy releases. This system allows constituents to submit requests in minutes, streamlining a process that traditionally required extensive time and resources, resulting in more efficient casework intake
Meaningful communication is essential to building trust between Members of Congress and the people they represent. This year's winners of the Best of Constituent Correspondence & Engagement Award found innovative ways to strengthen those connections. Representative Mike Flood’s office (R-NE) strategically organizes mobile office hours throughout the district each quarter and ensures concerns raised there are routed to the appropriate staff within 24 hours.
For many constituents, a visit to the Capitol is their most personal interaction with Congress, and this year’s winners of the Best of Constituent Experience in D.C. Award demonstrate how thoughtful planning can make those moments meaningful. For instance, Representative Val Hoyle's office (D-OR) turns constituent visits into memorable events through Member-led evening Capitol tours that begin with a reception-style gathering in the office, featuring home-state food and beverage products, and conclude on the House floor.
Innovation is most valuable when it helps congressional offices better serve their constituents, and this year's winners of the Best of Innovation & Modernization Award showed that modernization is most powerful when it solves practical problems. For example, Representative August Pfluger's office (R-TX) developed the "Pfluger Bot," an AI-powered tool integrated with their internal communication system that automatically categorizes incoming constituent correspondence and routes it appropriately. This technology frees staff to spend more time on constituent work.
At a time when partisan divisions undermine internal collaboration and progress, this year's winners of the Best of Bipartisan Collaboration Award demonstrate the value of sustained relationship-building across political lines. Representative Lucy McBath (D-GA) provides a clear example of such work by participating in a bipartisan prayer group as an avenue to develop meaningful working relationships with colleagues from the opposite party.
The strongest congressional offices are often distinguished by their internal dynamics, and the Excellence in Congressional Management Award recognizes offices that foster effective leadership, strong organizational practices, and a culture of accountability. Representative Ashley Hinson's office (R-IA) promotes transparency and accountability through weekly team-wide reports detailing constituent service metrics, legislative activity, communications performance, and office accomplishments.
The Chief of Staff of the Year Award honors the steady leaders behind every successful congressional office. Chiefs build teams, mentor staff, solve problems before they become crises, and create the culture that allows offices to thrive. While their work is rarely visible to the public, its impact is felt every day by Members, staff, and constituents.
This year's winners tell an encouraging story about Congress. Excellence is built through thoughtful leadership, dedicated public servants, strong organizational structures, and a shared commitment to improving the way congressional offices serve their constituents. These offices remind us that while the challenges facing Congress are enormous, extraordinary work is taking place every day to strengthen the First Branch.
The winners of the 2026 Democracy Awards include:
Best of U.S. Senate Constituent Service
- Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL)
- Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Best of U.S. House Constituent Service
- Representative Kevin Kiley (I-CA)
- Representative Sarah McBride (D-DE)
Best of Constituent Correspondence & Outreach
- Representative Mike Flood (R-NE)
- Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Best Constituent Experience in D.C.
- Senator James Lankford (R-OK)
- Representative Val Hoyle (D-OR)
Best of Innovation & Modernization
- Representative August Pfluger (R-TX)
- Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA)
Best of Bipartisan Collaboration
- Representative French Hill (R-AR)
- Representative Lucy McBath (D-GA)
Excellence in Congressional Management
- Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA)
- Representative Greg Stanton (D-AZ)
Chief of Staff of the Year
- Toni-Marie Higgins | Office of Senator John Boozman (R-AR)
- Mike Henry | Office of Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)
- Elizabeth Amster | Office of Representative Jake Auchincloss (D-MA)
- John Byers | Office of Representative August Pfluger (R-TX)
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, listens to President Donald Trump unveiling the Kennedy Center Honors nominees on Aug. 13, 2025, at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.
(Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)
Graham’s legacy & his failure over Trump
Jul 18, 2026
I met the late Sen. Lindsey Graham about 20 years ago, when I was coming up in conservative politics.
I had been part of the neoconservative wing that believed in the “benevolent hegemon” version of America, and the idea that “history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will,” as Francis Fukuyama once described it.
Like Fukuyama, many of us later came to question both the prudence and the righteousness of that theory as the Iraq War unraveled. But at the time, my hawkishness endeared me to people like Lindsey. Famously a hawk himself, he took to calling me “my little libertarian,” not because I was one, but as a playful dig at my occasional limitations on war — namely, the Constitution.
As recently as last summer, he charged into a room in the basement of the Capitol where I was and proclaimed, “There she is — my little libertarian.”
I enjoyed working with Graham in those early days, and later as I broke with the party over Trumpism, I enjoyed covering him as a journalist. But I also watched with some sadness as he morphed into a coward.
Donald Trump’s entry into Republican politics scrambled everything — it changed both the party and many of those who had led it, and Lindsey was no exception. In 2016, Graham would call Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot,” who “doesn’t represent my party.”
Just a short time later, he refashioned himself into one of Trump’s staunchest defenders.
After Jan. 6, conversations inside the party were swirling around whether Trump was still the best standard-bearer for Republicans, or if he was now a liability. It was a moment when leaders on the right could have attempted a realignment of sorts, a life after Trump.
There were good reasons to move on from one of the most destructive periods in modern American politics, including the original ones Lindsey gave for opposing Trump. After all, he was still a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot, but now we also knew he was an incompetent, corrupt, and self-dealing narcissist. Now was the time.
But when Lindsey was asked about this in May 2021, gone were the courage and confidence of his convictions. Instead, he was at best a reluctant realist, at worst, a subservient suck-up.
Graham said of Trump, “He’s the most popular Republican in the country by a lot. If you try to drive him out of the Republican Party, half the people will leave.”
He wasn’t concerned with good conservatives leaving the party — folks like Reps. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, and Sen. Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake were already being pushed out by Trump. He was talking about the people who showed up on Jan. 6, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the white nationalists and MAGA die-hards. They would have left if Trump had been pushed out. To which any good conservative should have said, “good riddance.”
But Lindsey, in his quest for power and relevance, decided to placate those ugly and odious elements, the very elements that his longtime friend John McCain had fought to marginalize and eliminate.
The sad irony in this is that Lindsey already had the kind of power and relevance that could have helped lead a movement to refocus the party on the ideals that once mattered to him. Instead, he squandered it to support Trump’s return, this time with a vengeance.
There’s a lot about Lindsey Graham that I’ll miss — his ability to work across the aisle, his fierce defense of the Syrians and the Ukrainians, his lifelong commitment to public service, and yes, his affectionate nickname for me. But what I’ll miss most is the man he never became, the man who could have led his party to the side of the right and the good. RIP to both men.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More