Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

To make democracy function again, would you listen to a thousand years of experience?

US Capitol
carterdayne/Getty Images

Murphy is the director of FixUS, the democracy reform advocacy arm of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal policy think tank. Murphy is also chief of staff for that organization, and Tomchik is deputy chief of staff.


If you had a problem, and someone with a thousand years of wisdom and experience offered you guidance, would you listen?

We all know that Washington has fallen into disrepair. Despite billions of dollars spent on presidential and congressional campaigns, it is stuck in an endless cycle of hyper-partisanship and legislative paralysis. The fact that nothing ever seems to change has left Americans feeling frustrated and politically homeless. And it's caused them to lose faith in our democratic institutions.

What happened? How did a country that rose to the occasion so many times throughout its history suddenly become incapable of the most basic aspects of governing?

The short answer is that, quite simply, good governing is no longer good politics. There was a time when public officials were rewarded for the hard work of legislating and forging the necessary relationships with members of the opposite party to solve pressing national issues. Now, that is no longer the case.

For our new report out this month, "Why is Governing No Longer Good Politics: Reflections from a Thousand Years of Public Service," we surveyed former elected and appointed officials representing nearly 1,000 years of public service spanning the presidencies of John F. Kennedy to Donald Trump. They were asked to respond to two questions: "Why does it seem that good governing is no longer good politics?" and "What has changed and what can we do about it?"

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

We conducted much of this research prior to the 2020 election, but the findings are as relevant as ever. No one leader or party brought us to this moment alone. The perspectives contained in this report include former members of Congress, ambassadors, Cabinet secretaries, White House chiefs of staff and other civil servants. Respondents were equally split between Republicans and Democrats to gather as wide a range of views as possible.

They confirmed our worst fears about the dysfunction of our political system — but they also expressed hope that change is possible.

Specifically, respondents were candid in lamenting how our electoral system contains built-in incentives that prioritize party loyalty over governing, starting with the role of big money in elections and the gerrymandering of districts. The latter is especially noteworthy now, when states are getting ready to redraw their congressional lines as soon as the delayed detailed population figures from last year's census get finished.

Former officials also emphasized how the rise of toxic media and social media environments have stoked our tribal natures, reinforced our self-imposed echo chambers and shifted the focus from important policy discussions to stories that foment outrage. This has made it tougher for policymakers to agree on a shared set of facts, making it virtually impossible to address the major challenges confronting our society.

There is also the personal obligation all of us have if this cycle of dysfunction is to be broken.

Almost every former official was insistent that for change to occur, we the people must hold our leaders, and one another, accountable. Our representative democracy is dependent on those who show-up and make their voices heard. Only by championing leaders who choose to govern, compromise and work with each other can we make governing good politics.

Few moments offer an opportunity for change quite like the start of a new presidency and a new Congress. Even after the pandemic subsides and the economy recovers, this country faces daunting obstacles — the most consequential of which is whether we can heal our political wounds and bridge our divides.

And history shows it doesn't have to be this way. "In my over 50 years of public life, I have seen Washington at its best and Washington at its worst," our report quotes Leon Panetta, the former secretary of Defense, White House chief of staff and House Budget Committee chairman. "The good news is that I have seen Washington work."

These days it's easy to forget that we're a nation that survived the pain of Vietnam, sent a man to the moon, emerged from the constitutional crisis of Watergate and achieved the triumph of democracy over communism. None of this was achieved by sheer luck; it required a government, elected officials and a people to work together and govern together.

A millennium worth of public service has come together in starting a conversation about how to make Washington work. The question now is whether we will heed their advice.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less