Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Compassion is the antidote for political stress

Opinion

compassion
Maskot/Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

We are S T R E S S E D out by our lives today. The rapid pace of change has left us vulnerable to exploitation. We are witnessing trauma, experiencing loss and asked to pull ourselves together, somehow. Add to that a political and media climate which all too often reports on politics like a sportscaster calls games and the result is many people wanting to disconnect from everything. Our diversity of ideas and opinions should help us share a common reality. But by disconnecting from each other, we risk delusion.


There is a lot of delusion in our world today. Individually we share varying degrees of it. Some of it has been intentionally inflicted and some is the result of an unwillingness to dig beyond the headlines. The level of psychological perversion is unlike any I have ever seen. And I also wonder if an earlier version of our current story/reality/divisions was present in the 1930s?

In the 1930s, the “new technology” was radio and people were so ready to believe it was all real, that when a fictional story, "War of the Worlds," was broadcast, a large segment of the listeners believed it was real — we were being invaded by aliens. World War II was starting “over there” while in the States, our predecessors were arguing over our involvement, rejecting war refugees, fearing communism and being willfully blind to the atrocities of war. Fear causes our selfish concerns to the surface and few people can remain generous in this atmosphere.

Still, the worst thing for me/us to do is to give into the fear and join the fight for power. What is missing is our ability to imagine a new future where we might all live with our collective human dignity intact. I find the denigration that accompanies the psychological war, the physical war and the intentional trauma must be met with dignity, compassion and resolve. This is the type of community I wish to co-create with you. This is the fight for humanity, not power.

I spent the weekend with some of the brightest people working on political reforms. Our solutions seemed disconnected from each other and a little disconnected from reality. They revolved around a domination model of “if we can just win, then everything will be OK.” Somehow, we keep missing the human dignity component that allows us to weave our collective work together effectively and in partnership. In a win/lose paradigm, everyone loses.

The Ukrainians have shown us resolve in the face of bullying, cruelty and trauma. The Poles have demonstrated dignity and compassion toward their neighbors. Together, they are embodying the “never again” declaration that followed WWII.

Can we do any less for our nation, when facing a less physical, but just as real, information war? How might we start an embodiment of who we need to be for a better future?

I’m scared too. Yet I keep moving forward with a pulse on the future I hope we all want. And hope we want a better, more equitable future more than we want to dominate others because we are afraid. I’m tracking the collective stories of our time, which has dystopian futures dominating our mindsets.

We need to imagine a better future. One where partnership is the norm instead of domination.


Read More

An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less