Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Republicans called out at the Democratic debate, and not in a bad way

Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders at the Democratic presidential debate in October

Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders all identified Republican senators when asked to reveal a surprising friendship.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

For those who view the restoration of cross-partisan friendships as genuinely key to making democracy work better, there was a glimmer of hope at the very end of the latest presidential debate.

Each of the Democratic candidates was asked Tuesday night to speak about a friendship that would be a surprise, and nine of the dozen talked exclusively about bonding with Republicans.

The downside, however, is that only two of them mentioned Senate GOP colleagues who will still be in public life after the next election.

Kamala Harris gave a shout-out to Rand Paul of Kentucky, her partner on legislation to reduce excessive bail for criminal defendants. And Cory Booker singled out a fresh companionship with Ted Cruz of Texas while talking up the benefits of his efforts to have dinner with every Republican senator, also mentioning attending Bible study and working on legislation to improve foster care with Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Time and again, congressional veterans and students of the Capitol Hill culture volunteer that the slide into legislative gridlock, punctuated by polarizing rhetoric, has accelerated thanks to the steep decline in such bipartisan bonding — borne of a combination of tribal-style demands for partisan loyalty and scheduling pressures that stress fundraising far more than connecting with colleagues.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


"This is reassuring in the fact that we've all acknowledging that we have to reach across the aisle, to get things done. No other way to get anything done in this country," said former Vice President Joe Biden, recapping his rivals' GOP-heavy roster while crisply encapsulated the core rationale of his own candidacy.

And yet Biden, the last of the candidates to name an unlikely friend, was in the majority naming somebody who is no longer available for collaboration.

He chose the late John McCain, the maverick Republican from Arizona who was one of Biden's most frequent bipartisan collaborators when both were in the Senate. And so did two other senators: Bernie Sanders, who worked with McCain to write an overhaul of veterans health care policy, and Amy Klobuchar, who joined him on several fact-finding trips to global hot spots.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren volunteered Charles Fried, the solicitor general in the second half of the Reagan administration, who later helped her get a teaching job. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii went with former Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who in recent days was briefly considered for a spot on President Trump's impeachment legal team. Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke talked about the companionship and trust forged during a cross-country road trip (livestreamed on Facebook) with colleague Will Hurd of Texas, but he's leaving Congress at the end of next year.

The final question of the debate — inspired by the recent online dustup about the personal bond between talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and former President George W. Bush — prompted other candidates into different tacks: Andrew Yang rhapsodized about a conservative trucker named Fred, Pete Buttigieg talked about the people he met in the military from different walks of life, Tom Steyer referenced a conservative environmentalist in South Carolina and Julian Castro spoke fondly of his childhood teachers.

"While we have had major debates about policy, we have to remember that what unites us is so much bigger than what divides us," said Klobuchar, who's also sought to propel herself into the top tier of candidates by positioning herself as a repairer of the partisan breech. "We have to remember that our job is to not just to change policy, but to change the tone in our politics, to look up from our phones, to look at each other, to start talking to each other."

For those worried about democracy's challenges, the discussion was a slightly heartening coda after almost three hours in which the candidates once again gave the issue only minimal attention.

Several of them tangentially lamented the corrupting influence of corporate political donations on policy-making. But only Warren, who now stands with Biden as a polling front-runner, confronted the issue more or less head on — seizing an opening to tout her just-released campaign finance plan, in which she promised to reject big-dollar donations and corporate funders through the general election if she is the nominee and challenged her rivals to disclose who's helping them raise money.

More transparency about these so-called bundlers is a top goal of "good government" groups, but so far their efforts to pressure the 2020 candidates to disclose the identities of their helpers has been largely ignored.

Warren also reiterated her desire to end the minority party's ability to filibuster legislation in the Senate, knowing that attaining 60 votes for any Democratic president's agenda will be extremely difficult in 2021. Her Senate colleagues in the presidential field have been less emphatic about making such a radical change to the way the chamber has operated for more than a century, and some democracy reformers are wary that such a change — already instituted for all confirmations — would drain the last vestiges of bipartisanship from Capitol Hill.

Several of the candidates rehearsed their ideas for Supreme Court changes — term limits, rotating seats or adding additional seats in hopes of making it less polarized (or at least less conservative) — as part of their answer to questions about the future of abortion rights.

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