Barbara Walter is a political scientist and professor at the University of California San Diego who specializes in studying civil wars. She joins Braver Angels CMO Ciaran O'Connor for a wide-ranging conversation on the current state of political violence in the United States, what America can learn from civil conflicts in other countries, and how we, together as citizens, can take a stand for peace.
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

Fourth-grade students read books in the elementary school at the John F. Kennedy Schule dual-language public school on Sept. 18, 2008, in Berlin.
(Sean Gallup/Getty Images/Tribune Content Agency)
Keep artificial intelligence out of American classrooms
Apr 23, 2026
Norway is, by almost any metric, a profoundly successful nation. It’s rich, democratic and relatively corruption-free. It’s not a socialist country, but fans of a robust welfare state and high taxes see much to admire in the very progressive Norwegian model. It also benefits from having the biggest and arguably best-run sovereign wealth fund in the world.
And yet, Norway nearly ruined its children.
In 2016, flush with cash and progressive values, Norway gave every child in the country, starting at the age of 5, their own iPad or similar digital device. A decade later, young Norwegians now struggle to read. “Around 500,000 Norwegians, in a population of only 5.6 million, cannot read a text message or simple instructions,” reports The Times of London. “Of the 65 countries measured for children’s enjoyment of reading by Pirls (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), it comes bottom.”
Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store launched a program in August to deal with the problem. “Norwegian children used to be among the best readers in the world,” he said at the time. “But today, 15,000 pupils finish primary school without being able to read properly.”
Now imagine giving every child an AI chatbot to answer all of their questions.
I am not a catastrophist when it comes to artificial intelligence. But, given Norway’s experience with iPads — or our own with smartphones — I worry that the mass introduction of AI, particularly in schools, will be very bad for children.
As a curmudgeon and as a writer, I hate nearly all of the cliches about children, even the ones that are accurate. With that caveat, it’s simply true that children are the future. They will be the next generation of parents, voters and citizens. And all of the cliches about how kids learn by doing are true.
AI removes the doing.
Just as you can’t learn how to ride a bike from reading a book, you can’t get the benefits of reading by asking AI to read a book for you. The same holds for math, science, computer programming and nearly every other aspect of education.
Our military is the finest and most lethal in the world. But before you learn how to operate a drone or launch a cyberattack, you still have to go through basic training.
Education, both at home and at school, is basic training for civilization.
Americans love technology, but not every technological advancement is an advancement in every sphere of life. There are machines that can lift weights, but using a machine to lift weights for you doesn’t count as exercise and doesn’t build your muscles. Using a machine to think for you is the route to mental flabbiness.
Fans of AI don’t like this argument. They use terms like “cognitive shift” and “upskilling.” By removing the drudge work, smart people can use AI to be smarter and more productive. I think there’s a lot of merit to this when talking about existing highly skilled workers. But how did those workers become highly skilled in the first place? By doing the work.
Educators learned a similar lesson when cheap calculators became widely available in the 1970s. As you got more advanced, you could use calculators for certain problems. But first you needed to learn how to do the basics. You also needed to learn to think mathematically. AI is essentially a souped-up calculator for nearly all mental tasks. Again, that’s often — but not always — great for adults who grew up in a pre-AI world.
Which is why I think education should mostly stay in the pre-AI world. That will be very difficult. It will require more memorization, more tests in the classroom and an education establishment that can resist the seduction of technological fads. If the point of education is to build up muscle memory for how to think and how to do things, letting kids go home and have AI give them the answers is not very different, educationally, from letting kids cheat. For the same reason that having a robot do 50 push-ups for you wouldn’t be acceptable for a physical fitness test, having a robot read a book for you shouldn’t be acceptable either.
The point of education in the AI era shouldn’t be to teach kids how to find the answers in the most efficient way possible, but to equip them to be ready to ask the right kinds of questions, including the ability to ask an AI chatbot why it gave you the answers it did.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

A growing crisis threatens U.S. public data. Experts warn disappearing federal datasets could undermine science, policy, and democracy—and outline a plan to protect them.
Getty Images, Richard Drury
America's Data Crisis: Saving Trusted Facts Is Essential to Democracy
Apr 22, 2026
In March 2026, more than a hundred information and data experts gathered in a converted Christian Science church to confront a problem most Americans never see, but that shapes nearly every public debate we have. The nonprofit Internet Archive convened this national Information Stewardship Forum at their San Francisco headquarters because something fundamental is breaking: the country’s shared foundation of facts.
For decades, the United States has relied on a vast ecosystem of federal data on health, climate, the economy, education, demographics, scientific research, and more. This data is the backbone of journalism, policymaking, scientific discovery, and public accountability. It is how we know whether the air is safe to breathe, whether unemployment is rising or falling, whether a new disease is spreading, or whether a community is being left behind.
But over the past year, that foundation has proven far more fragile than anyone imagined.
Across agencies, data collections have been altered, discontinued, or quietly removed from public view. Analytic teams have been fired. Advisory committees have been disbanded. Climate and environmental datasets have vanished from federal websites. LGBTQ+ data has been dropped from surveys. Long‑running scientific projects have been defunded or re‑scoped. Even the leadership of national statistical agencies can now be replaced at will.
The open data movement—once focused on improving access and usability—has moved into a defensive mode. Thousands of volunteers have stepped up to download and archive endangered datasets. Lawsuits from physicians, farmers, and advocacy groups have restored some information. Congress has rejected some of the most extreme cuts. But the deeper lesson is unmistakable: America’s national data infrastructure can be undermined and damaged far more easily than anyone anticipated.
And when trusted data disappears, something else disappears with it: the possibility of a shared reality.
At a moment when Americans across the political spectrum already distrust institutions, losing reliable national data accelerates the slide toward fragmentation. Without a common set of facts, we cannot solve shared problems—or even agree on what those problems are.
A growing coalition of organizations, researchers, technologists, and civic leaders is working to save and preserve national data on many levels. Now it’s time to bring those lines of work together. We need a coordinated, national program to protect essential data and build alternatives where federal sources fail.
Such a program can begin by acknowledging that we cannot save everything. Data.gov, the federal portal for all the government’s public data, provides access to more than 400,000 datasets. Not all are equally important, equally used, or equally at risk. The challenge is to identify the most essential datasets—such as the ones that underpin public health, climate science, economic stability, education, and democratic accountability—and determine which are vulnerable.
A practical, scalable strategy can include several steps:
1. Track what we’ve lost. We need a thorough, AI-enabled scan of the federal data ecosystem to see what’s already been lost or changed, and set up automated monitoring to detect even subtle changes going forward.
2. Build coalitions in key domains. Public health experts know which datasets matter most to disease surveillance. Climate scientists know which environmental indicators are irreplaceable. Education researchers know which federal surveys track opportunity. These experts must work alongside data scientists, AI specialists, and philanthropic partners to map what truly counts.
3. Prioritize core datasets. Through interviews, surveys, and quantitative analysis—such as tracking citations in research or journalism—coalitions can identify a “core canon” of essential datasets in each field.
4. Assess the risks. Tools like the Data Checkup, developed by dataindex.us, can assess threats to federal datasets. This work can be automated and scaled with AI.
5. Determine the federal role. Some federal data—like satellite observations, national health surveillance, or economic indicators—cannot be replicated by states or private actors. Other data can be supplemented or replaced by state and local sources, private‑sector datasets, crowdsourcing, or nontraditional data sources.
6. Take action to save essential data. When federal data is essential, coalitions can pursue advocacy, public comments, direct engagement with agencies, or litigation. When alternatives exist, they can be developed, benchmarked, and scaled.
7. Put the data to work. The best way to defend data is to use it. Publishing use cases, visualizations, tools, and plain‑language insights helps the public see why this information matters. Generative AI can make federal and open data accessible to millions of non‑technical users.
8. Think globally. The threats to data go beyond the U.S. We need to track the international impacts of U.S. data loss, study how international sources might replace U.S. data, and share lessons learned with other countries.
9. Strengthen institutional protections. In addition to managing today’s immediate problems, we need to develop policies, laws, governance strategies, and guardrails for more stable, reliable data in the future.
10. Sustain the cycle. The threats will evolve. So must the response.
The United States needs a durable, collaborative, and forward‑looking strategy to protect the information that underpins democratic decision‑making. The alternative is a future where facts become optional—and where the loudest voices, not the most accurate data, shape public life.
This essay draws from CODE’s longer, 3,000‑word white paper detailing the full scope of the challenge and a concrete proposal for action. That white paper draws on the work of many dedicated, expert organizations that are already protecting essential data in real time. It outlines how to build an integrated, collaborative, and scalable program that unites these efforts—combining expert judgment, a clear decision framework, rapid response capacity, and both human and AI‑enabled analysis. CODE hopes that this paper can be a starting point to encourage alliances and communities of practice that bring together subject‑matter experts, data advocates, technologists, and philanthropic partners.
Read the full report with the complete proposal for action at
https://bit.ly/NationsDataProgram.
Joel Gurin is president and founder of the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE).
Keep ReadingShow less

How the Democratic Party can reconnect with rural voters by clarifying its stance on key cultural issues like gun control, abortion, religion, and American identity without changing core policies.
Getty Images, EyeWolf
Winning Rural Voters: A New Democratic Strategy
Apr 22, 2026
The Democratic Party cannot win in rural areas without clarifying—not changing—its position on the cultural issues that are so important in rural areas across the country.
The reason why people in these areas consistently vote Republican and thus against their best economic interests is that these cultural issues are more important to them. Thus, Democrats' focusing on how their finances, health care, and the education of their children have deteriorated under Trump and Republican leadership in general will not have the desired impact.
Note: I am not proposing that Democrats change their policies on these cultural issues, just that they do a better job at communicating what their policies are.
Guns: Gun control is not about taking away the rights of gun owners to hunt or defend their family; it in no way infringes on their legitimate rights to own guns and use them. What this is solely about is trying to stop the epidemic of gun violence against innocent people that is plaguing our nation, causing untold grief to tens of thousands of families each year.
Gun violence is not limited to the mass shootings that get national attention. A far greater problem is the tens of thousands of innocent Americans who are killed every year by gun violence—more than 48,000 deaths in 2022. The enormity of that number can be seen by comparing it with the 58,000 American soldiers who died in the entire Vietnam War.
The NRA’s main argument against gun control boils down to this: No measure reducing access to guns is acceptable because any such measure is a first step by the government and gun opponents to ultimately removing all guns from private possession.
This is patently nonsense, a scare tactic; it has no basis in fact. There isn’t a politician alive who wants to do anything more than control access to guns for the reasons I’ve stated, without disturbing legitimate ownership and use for hunting and self-defense.
If this is the case, then why, someone may ask, does the NRA, an organization they trust, take such a broad position? The answer is that the NRA has morphed into a lobbyist for the gun industry, which provides much of the NRA's funding.
That is why the NRA is against a ban on assault weapons or magazines holding large numbers (100) of bullets. These types of equipment are a major revenue source for the gun industry, but are not used by hunters or in self-defense. Improved background checks wouldn't hamper your right to buy a gun, but by keeping guns out of the hands of those who are not mentally fit or have a criminal past, they would impact industry profits.
It's true that guns don't kill people; people kill people. But if certain people didn't have guns, they couldn't kill.
Abortion: First, it must be absolutely clear that Democrats are not pro-abortion. It is a sad event for probably most, if not all, women.
That brings up the second point: the Democratic focus needs to be on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through education efforts by the government and organizations. The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer abortions. One statistic: Among young (18-29) women who became pregnant in 2008, 57% were unintended pregnancies.
How to reduce unwanted pregnancies: improved sex education of young adults and easy access to contraception; there is no question that teaching abstinence doesn’t work. Where that is not possible because such efforts are controversial for moral/religious reasons, Democrats have to respect those concerns.
In such cases, Democrats should agree that related education is necessary: Teach youth to question requests for or desires for sex, to ask, “Is this something I really want to do?” Both young women and men need to ask whether sex is just fun or whether it should have a deeper meaning. And young men need to stop thinking of sex as conquest, of proving their masculinity.
Even with all these efforts, however, there will still be unwanted pregnancies. And in those cases, abortion needs to be a legal option from both a societal and a moral perspective.
There are few things more destructive to a child’s well-being and emotional health than to feel unloved or be neglected. This also has negative societal consequences because of the life choices such children are more likely to make. And morally, it is not right to place children—who after all have no say in whether they are born or who their parents are—in such a damaging situation.
Lastly, I would suggest dropping the motto: "A woman's right to choose." The issue isn't really choice—which in this context sounds callous—it is what is in the best interest of both the fetus and the mother.
Yes, the bottom line is support for Roe v Wade. But nothing I’ve suggested takes away from those principles.
American Identity: I have often written of the past error of Democrats ceding to the Republicans being the Party of patriotism and American values. It is the Democrats who are truly patriotic and true to our founding principles. Trump and his MAGA allies have perverted our founding principles (see my article, "The Far-Right's Biggest Lie.")
The Party must explain to the people what the founding principles really are and then wrap itself in the flag. (See my article, "Trump's Desecration of the Flag.")
Religion: Find common ground on which to walk. The simplest common ground regarding almost all questions of national policy on social issues is, "What would Jesus do?"
Whether one is speaking about gun control, equality, religious freedom, or gay rights—the question of what would Jesus do is both highly relevant and helpful. And there is no question in my mind that if one looks at the gospel with an open mind, a person finds that on all of these subjects, Jesus would come down on the liberal, Democratic side. I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I have heard those who can provide ample support for this conclusion. Democrats must be prepared to quote chapter and verse.
Then there's the question of abortion—what would Jesus say about abortion prior to fetal viability? Clearly, abortion is killing a fetus. But the Bible is unclear whether causing the death of a fetus is murder; there is language that suggests that the fetus is not a person. So the Bible gives some wiggle room, which allows the focus to shift to what happens to an unwanted child. I believe the compassionate Jesus would say that no child deserves to feel unwanted and unloved, so that if a child is truly unwanted, the compassionate answer is to abort before it becomes a person.
To present themselves in this new light, the Democratic Party must undertake an extensive media and town hall blitz, focusing on rural areas. And they should use gun owners, women, blue collar workers, and Evangelicals, as well as Party leaders, to make these points.
The future of the Party and the future of our democracy depend on Democrats winning back the hearts and minds of rural America.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less

Bamilia Delcine Olistin restocks product at Bon Samaritain Grocery, a Haitian-owned grocery, on February 3, 2026 in Springfield, Ohio. A federal judge issued a temporary stay blocking the Trump administration's attempt to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian immigrants, but Haitian TPS beneficiaries and residents of Springfield continue to face uncertainty over their protected status.
Getty Images, Jon Cherry
Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians
Apr 22, 2026
Warrantless Surveillance
Almost 3 weeks ago, House Republicans appeared to be spitting mad because the Senate had had the temerity to pass a DHS funding agreement overnight by unanimous consent and then recess. The Senate did that because it was the best deal that could get passed. (The House still hasn’t acted on that Senate DHS funding bill.)
But last night, around 2 am, the House passed a 10 day extension of existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 authorities by unanimous consent and then recessed until Monday. Apparently, it’s fine when the House does it. Why did the House do this? Because it was the best deal that could get passed.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702 is a portion of law that allows for warrantless surveillance of US citizens under some circumstances.
Because what’s at issue is not the meaning of the law, but how it’s used, we provide two contrasting explanations: one from Intel.gov and one from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Government intelligence agencies focus on what they claim is a tool to help them do their jobs better. The ACLU focuses on the unintended consequences of this tool being used.
Unlike the House, the Senate will attempt to address this extension by unanimous consent since the law expires on April 20*. However, there may be objections to the unanimous consent request and if so, the law could expire before the Senate acts.
*While the legislative language would lapse on next week, FISA courts can, and already have, certified the Section 702 provisions for at least another year. So, what changes next week if no action is taken is…nothing. For now. The court did demand some limited changes to how Section 702 is implemented. However, those changes do not align with what many members of Congress, across both parties and chambers want. What Congress members would like to see, among other things, are requirements for warrants for surveillance of communications by US citizens.
Temporary Protected Status for Haitians
The second Trump Administration has been revoking all of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations it can. TPS status is designated by the federal government for people from countries where returning or staying would dangerous to due to factors like political instability or natural distaster. Haitians are one of the largest group of immigrants covered by TPS status.
As long as TPS is active, these immigrants are here legally. But, as soon as it’s revoked, they become immigrants here illegally, even though no actions of theirs have had anything to do with that change in status.
Rep. Pressley (D-MA7) put together a discharge petition on a bill introduced by Rep. Gillen (D-NY4) to force the administration to keep TPS for Haitians active and this week the House, including some Republicans, voted to pass it 224-204.
The bill has to now go to the Senate and, like any other bill, would need the President’s signature before becoming law. This last step is unlikely; the President would be more likely to veto it.
This bill’s passage is notable because it’s yet another instance (the last being the bill to release the Epstein files) in which a discharge petition was successful. Given that these petitions exist to get around leadership objections, what that means is that more and more, rank and file members are telling leadership they disagree with leadership’s positions and priorities and will work with the minority party to put forth bills.
Still rare, but a sign perhaps of some substantive change in how the House will operate going forward.
Warrantless Surveillance and TPS for Haitians was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















