Seriously: what's going on with Elon Musk? And what happens when "free speech absolutism" runs up against the realities of running the nation's de facto digital public square? How has Joe Biden performed in his first two years in office? And what can Americans expect from Braver Angels in 2023? In the final episode of the year, Ciaran O'Connor convenes fellow Braver Angels leaders John Wood, Jr., Monica Guzman, April Kornfield, and Gabbi Timmis for a freewheeling roundtable discussion.
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
Americans Voting in an Election
Getty Images
Voting Is Not Just a Privilege It Is Every Citizens’ Responsibility
Oct 29, 2026
Despite the consistent determinations that US elections are secure across the country and there is virtually no evidence of non-citizens voting, in reports released as recently as September 2026; President Trump has doubled down on his claims that voter fraud is a major problem in America and on October 20th, he announced a new $25 Million Fraud Whistleblower program to be administered by the Department of Justice.
This announcement achieves a variety of the president’s goals: (i) It intentionally perpetuates the misinformation, that voter fraud is a serious problem in the United States; (ii) it undermines the trust in the voting systems, as well as in the states administering the elections; (iii) it fosters distrust amongst neighbors, who are more likely to suspect people of color and report them for a reward. This has the concomitant benefit of (iv) intimidating people who are in fear of going to the polls and (v) It gives the illusion that the federal government is prepared to give away more free money (along with the Tariff rebate checks, the Trump Accounts, the DOGE dividend, the direct payments for healthcare and the $5,000 for supporting GOP midterm candidates.)
The President’s efforts to sow confusion surrounding the election, are consistent with the GOP’s decisions to close more than 1,688 different polling sites across 13 states between the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and 2018. After Shelby, the states were no longer required to notify voters of changes of polling place relocations.
In addition, since 2024, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 22 states have enacted 38 restrictive voting laws which are in effect at the midterms, 12 states have enacted stricter voter ID laws or invalidated previously acceptable IDs for voting.
When one considers the impact of the gerrymandering wars, it is a wonder that anyone who is not a dedicated follower or a political devotee, will know where to cast their ballot and in advance of seeing their ballot, who they will be voting for.
The President in March, issued a sweeping executive order intended to federalize the administration of U.S. Elections. It would require people to prove their citizenship at registration, change the certification standards of voting machines, prohibit the counting of ballots postmarked before the election day but received thereafter. It would have also put DOGE and the Department of Homeland Security, in charge of monitoring the voter rolls and other available records. The courts blocked or suspended most of the president’s election initiatives, but this combined with the January 6th 2021violent assault on the Congress seeking to overturn the 2020 election, provide grim reminders of the extent to which the president will go to achieve his goal of retaining power.
In addition to his other efforts, Reuters reports as recently as October 14th, that it is highly probable that the President could:
- Allege election fraud or that voting machines have been compromised.
- Pressure election officials to change or cancel results.
- Seize ballots or manipulate voting machines.
- Have federal election monitors interfere with voting.
- Deploy ICE officers to provide an intimidating presence near polling sites.
- Deploy US troops to the polling sites.
- Declare a national emergency over voting fraud.
- Initiate federal investigations and charges against election officials.
- The GOP might refuse to acknowledge the election results (as some tried on 6 Jan 2021) and refuse to swear in the new members of congress.
These concerns are amplified, when combined with fact, that the GOP’s largest donors this election cycle, who have contributed $9.8 billion the through the 25th of September, (we note that the numbers have gotten fuzzier since the secret super PACs and Crypto contributors) have also been provided ample opportunities to evade election commission oversight.
So, what can you do.
- BY ALL MEANS VOTE
- If you have a mail in ballot return it as soon as possible.
- Several states have drop boxes to receive absentee ballots. If you can return your ballot early or have someone (if that is permitted in your state) return your ballot, to a drop box in advance of the election date.
- Mail your ballot in plenty of time to get there by the election date. Ten days before November 3rd, is recommended. As mentioned, some states will count ballots, as long as they are postmarked before the election date. Some will not. There is an effort by the president to force polls to cease counting on the date of the election. Do not risk this, vote early.
- Many states permit you to track whether or not your ballot has been received.
- If you have a mail in ballot return it as soon as possible.
- Vote Early
- Many states have early voting. Some open polls several weeks early, others permit early voting at the local election commission. Filing your vote early, provides the comfort of knowing you have voted and your ballot has been received, regardless of what happens on the day of the election.
- Demand your right to vote
- If you are at the polls on November 3rd, ensure that your vote is accepted. There will be poll watchers, representatives of political parties, legal advisers and others who will assist you to resolve any issues that may arise. In general, they are extremely professional, courteous and it is highly likely that they have dealt with whatever issue(s) you may have and will be able to craft a resolution.
- Do not let anyone take away your ability to vote or intimidate you. In the worst-case scenario, one of those lawyers or party representatives will escalate any challenge to your vote to the on-site supervisor, election commission or even the courts. In most cases, that is not necessary and most situations will be resolved quite easily. In some cases, and in some states, it is appropriate to cast a provisional ballot, while the issues are resolved.
Many people believe that this election is extremely important. That issue is for each individual to decide. What most of us can agree upon is, that if you are a citizen you are entitled to vote. In our democracy it is imperative that you exercise that privilege.
Walter H. White, Jr. is a member of the Board of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, a founding director and past chair of the ABA Center for Human Rights and has served as an election observer in the former Soviet Union on behalf of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Political Polarization and Extremism
Getty Images
Both Parties Have Forgotten How to Lose: It’s Time for Guardrails
Oct 29, 2026
On November 3 Americans vote in the midterm elections, and the most important question may be whether the losers accept the result. A Pew survey this summer found that just 55 percent of Americans are confident the midterms will be run fairly and accurately, down from 64 percent in 2022. The partisan detail is more revealing. Since 2024, Republican confidence has risen and Democratic confidence has fallen from 77 percent to 58 percent. Trust in the referee now depends on who holds power.
Democracy rests on a kind of sportsmanship agreement. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr put it well: man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but his inclination to injustice makes it necessary. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of India’s constitution, called democracy a method of bringing revolutionary change without bloodshed. Both understood that the system works only if the losing side agrees to try again next time instead of burning down the field. Americans in both parties are forgetting how to do that.
Attacking the Referee
The Supreme Court is democracy’s referee, and this year both sides went after it. When the Court ruled 6-3 in February that a 1977 emergency-powers law gave the president no authority to impose his sweeping global tariffs, President Trump called the justices who ruled against him a “disgrace.” When the same Court narrowed the Voting Rights Act in April, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries denounced “this illegitimate Supreme Court majority.” Different targets, same reflex. Every justice was nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate. Calling the Court illegitimate whenever it rules against you rejects the voters who built it.
Rewriting the Rules Mid-Game
The second failure is refusing to accept the score, and now, changing the rules before the game is even played. Al Gore conceded in 2000 after a recount that split the country. In 2017, dozens of House Democrats boycotted Donald Trump’s inauguration; four years later, Trump refused to accept his own defeat, and January 6 followed. Each side nurses a real grievance: Democrats remember a Supreme Court seat held open for most of 2016, and Republicans remember a Russia investigation that shadowed a presidency and ended without a conspiracy charge. Since the summer of 2025, seven Republican-led states have redrawn their congressional maps in the middle of the decade, beginning with Texas at the White House’s urging. California voters answered with a partisan map of their own, and Virginia Democrats tried the same until their state’s Supreme Court struck down the new map. After the Voting Rights Act ruling, Jeffries said “all options are on the table.” Each side calls its move self-defense. Each move becomes the other side’s excuse, like a team that moves the goalposts at halftime and then complains when the other team does the same.
Paralysis follows. Last fall’s 43-day shutdown was the longest full shutdown in American history, and this spring the Department of Homeland Security went unfunded for a record 76 days while airport screeners missed paychecks. In April, Gallup found that just 10 percent of Americans approve of Congress.
Building the Guardrails
It was not always this way. In 1983, with Social Security months from running dry, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, who disagreed loudly and often, backed a bipartisan commission and shared the political risk of fixing it. Neither man pretended to like the other. That kind of restraint can no longer be assumed, so it has to be built in.
Four reforms would help. The Senate should guarantee every Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a floor vote within 90 days, whichever party holds the gavel. Congress should create a bipartisan commission to settle candidate-eligibility disputes before ballots are printed, a job the Supreme Court said in Trump v. Anderson belongs to Congress. It should also build on the bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 with an independent, staggered-term body to oversee certification, and it should ban mid-decade redistricting outright. And states should adopt open primaries paired with ranked-choice general elections, the system Alaska’s voters narrowly chose to keep in 2024, so candidates must win support beyond their loudest faction.
None of this requires a constitutional amendment, and none of it favors either party. Democracies rarely collapse in a single dramatic moment. They wear down one broken norm at a time. On November 3, one side will lose. The country will be better off if it still remembers how.
Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D., is the Director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking. A former R&D executive holding 30 U.S. patents, he has published 87 articles, appearing in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (PNAS), RealClear Markets, Science and Defense platforms; Washington Examiner, SpaceNews, The Fulcrum, The Humanist, American Thinker, and South Asia Monitor (on the editorial board, and also hosts the show “SAM Dialogues with Dr. M. P. Reddy.”) Website: mpreddyinsights.com | Contact: mpreddy54@yahoo.com, https://lnkd.in/gn2zQJbs
Keep ReadingShow less
Voters in Brazil, Serbia, and Hungary have beaten back authoritarian pressure at the ballot box. An opinion piece on what Americans can learn before Nov. 3.
Getty Images, VIEW press
People Power Is On A Winning Streak
Oct 29, 2026
As Election Day looms, voter intimidation tactics abound. On Monday, Trump offered $1 million for voter fraud tips that lead to an arrest and conviction. Last week, 92 undelivered ballots turned up in a Seattle dumpster; election officials voided every one, mailed replacements, and called it mail theft. In Alaska, Trump’s Justice Department already sued to block certification of the Senate race–but only if the Republican senator loses (Trump boasted that he’s the one who told them to do it). So the system is rigged, but only if Republicans lose. These are incoherent arguments about election integrity that reveal the desperation of people afraid to lose their grip on power. Luckily, the world keeps offering hopeful examples of what happens to those people.
In Brazil’s election on Sunday, democracy prevailed. After losing the 2022 election, Jair Bolsonaro pushed false claims that the election was rigged. Then, in a January 6th–like episode, his supporters stormed Brazil’s Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential palace. Brazil’s electoral court banned Bolsonaro from office until 2030 for his attacks on the voting system, and its Supreme Court later sentenced him to 27 years for plotting a coup. Trump called him a “good man,” slapped a 50% tariff on the entire country in protest, and Bolsonaro’s son ran in his place, against President and Workers’ Party candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The algorithm picked a side. There were more than 1,100 reports of largely pro-Lula accounts being removed or throttled on Meta’s platforms, and Lula’s own ad account getting briefly suspended. Brazil’s electoral court had to give Meta 24 hours to prove it wasn’t playing favorites. Meta denied any favoritism, but few were convinced; hundreds protested outside Meta’s São Paulo headquarters. Americans have reason for doubt, too. During this month’s No Kings rallies, Meta disabled the No Kings Instagram account for more than four hours, blaming a bot-detection glitch.
With the algorithm working against him, after the first round, Lula was trailing his opponent by more than 2.2 million votes. But then the people organized. They found ways to navigate around shadowbans and technological interference, taking to the streets and to innovative digital organizing. Lula’s posts ended up drawing close to 111 million interactions compared to Bolsonaro’s 31 million. On Sunday, Lula won the runoff–by nearly 4.4 million votes.
The same day, Serbia flipped. After the concrete canopy of a newly renovated train station in Novi Sad collapsed in 2024, killing 16 people, students took to the streets…and never really left. The youth lobby doesn’t have deep pockets, but it has something money can’t buy: energy. Thanks to the highest voter turnout since Serbian independence, their youth-led party Student List won a majority. Aleksandar Vučić’s camp conceded. I’ve written before about why so many young people sit out elections, but Serbia just proved what happens when they don’t.
Earlier this year, community power won in Hungary, too. Viktor Orbán spent 16 years building a propaganda machine and empire, JD Vance flew in to campaign for him, and Trump promised American “economic might” only if Orbán’s party won, but grassroots politics prevailed. Orbán’s opponent, Péter Magyar, went town to town, village to village, for two years, including in Orbán’s rural base. Then, in April, Hungarians turned out in record numbers, winning Magyar’s party a two-thirds majority. Orbán conceded.
As we celebrate democratic resilience in Brazil, Serbia, and Hungary, we cannot overlook what is unfolding around the world. In Ecuador, for instance, the people face an erosion of democratic accountability under President Daniel Noboa, an American-born leader whose administration has increasingly embraced militarization. From allegations of grave human rights abuses committed during military operations to the expansion of executive authority and renewed openness to foreign military involvement, Noboa’s policies threaten the sovereignty and constitutional protections Ecuadorians have fought to secure for generations. The enforced disappearance and killing of four Afro-Ecuadorian children from Las Malvinas in December 2024, for which soldiers have since been sentenced, should haunt the conscience of every government that claims public security justifies extraordinary state power. Security without accountability does not make anyone safer. The world must keep watching, even outside of election season.
Defending democracy cannot be a matter of geography or political convenience. We have an obligation to recognize authoritarian tendencies wherever they emerge, including among governments that enjoy Washington’s favor. And democracy requires more than defeating authoritarianism at the ballot box. It demands an informed, organized, and vigilant public willing to defend civil liberties, human dignity, and national self-determination long after the votes are counted. Our solidarity must also cross borders because the threats to democracy already do.
The first step is to vote. Election Day is November 3. Make a plan, and if you have a few hours, volunteer to protect the vote. Countries around the world continue to show up for democracy. Now it’s our turn.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Marcelo "Marco" Ramirez is a Democratic political strategist, former UFCW organizer, and University of Washington graduate specializing in Latin American affairs and human rights. The son of Ecuadorian immigrants, he currently leads communications & community engagement for San Diego County Democrats.
Keep ReadingShow less
Benjamin Franklin's portrait on the one hundred-dollar bill alongside the US flag
Getty Images
The Power of the Mega-Rich Perverts the Democratic Process
Oct 29, 2026
A recent NewYork Times article reported that a total of $11.6 billion will be spent on advertising in the current midterm elections, with $1 billion being spent in its last 2 weeks. Republican super PACs have invested $1.6 billion, twice the amount of Democratic super PACs. Elon Musk has contributed $420 million.
While money has always spoken in American elections, and the force of money's voice became even louder after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, the experience of the current election season shows clearly why the unregulated flow of money from the mega-rich into election campaigns is perverting our democratic process.
Our democracy is based on millions of people making their voices heard through the voting process and electing their representatives—be they Representatives in the House, Senators, or the President. Even under the current circumstances, that still is the outward form of our democracy.
But how do individuals decide whom to vote for? While for some the vote has always been simply a matter of voting your Party, for many it' was a matter of listening and watching, absorbing information from multiple sources, and making a decision—based on that input—on what was in your best interest. This is what used to be called "the marketplace of ideas."
And so the question becomes, do we still have a marketplace of ideas? In one sense, one can argue that the fact that billions of dollars are being spent on advertising does not change the fact that there is a marketplace of ideas. And indeed, in one sense that is correct.
However, the concept of the marketplace of ideas is about the public weighing the truth or benefit of competing ideas. One cannot do that if you are bombarded by many messages supporting one idea and few for the competing idea. This is partly how the Nazis took control of Germany—there was little to counterbalance their propaganda. Think about it: If one is exposed to 100 ads saying one thing, and only 10 ads saying the opposite, the candidate with the 100 ads is more likely to win against the candidate with 10 ads, regardless the quality of the ads' contents
This is, to my way of thinking, a corollary to the Supreme Court concept of "one man, one vote" —that it is central to our democracy that each vote carries the same weight. So too is it central that each individual is able to come to a reasoned decision.
While it is true that regardless how much money is spent in a campaign, the end result is still one man, one vote—that is a question of process—if the mega-rich on one side have a huge advantage in the amount of messages they are sending to the public, it is likely that their side will win. Not because of the quality of their arguments meshing with the best interests of the people, but because the people hear their arguments so often that the arguments of the opposing side are drowned out. The overwhelming quantity of ads commandeers the individual's thinking and decision process.
That is why most proposals to limit campaigns to public funding have been founded on the principle of each candidate having the same amount of money to spend on his campaign. Then it is purely a matter of the quality of the ideas and their meshing with the interests of the people, because the quantity is equal, thus restoring the marketplace of ideas.
While the Supreme Court has upheld legislation that limits the amount an individual can contribute to a campaign (to prevent corruption), it has turned back efforts by Congress to prohibit outside spending during the last months prior to an election by independent organizations (e.g. super PACs and labor unions), so long as that spending is not coordinated with the campaigns. NOTE: This caveat is a delusion, for regardless whether the ads are "coordinated" with a campaign, they are supporting a campaign or attacking the opponent; these are not neutral comments about the election. Political parties can spend unlimited funds even in coordinated efforts.
The Supreme Court's holy grail in these cases has been the 1st Amendment right to free speech. It has viewed all of these cases as abridging that right and therefore unconstitutional. In Citizens United it declared that corporations were "associations of citizens" and thus were protected by the 1st Amendment.
But the 1st Amendment right is not absolute. Whether it's the proverbial, not being able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or laws prohibiting false advertising, speech can be limited when the speech either creates an immediate danger or where the parties involved are not on an equal footing and the speech misleads or harms consumers.
These cases all deal with the content of the speech in question. In the case of limiting spending in support of a candidate, the issue is not the content of the speech (which is another matter, see my article, "The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-frauding American Politics") but the quantity of the speech. Such a law would not prevent a corporation or super PAC from exercising its free speech rights, it would just limit the amount it spends in this endeavor.
Here again, as in the false advertising instance, you have two parties not on an equal footing—you have mega-rich donors and the average voter. The spending overwhelms the ability of the voter to make an informed decision on what is in his best interest and thus harms both the individual voter and the nation. Even if both sides spent a similar huge amount, being overwhelmed is not conducive to the reasoned thought process necessary to be the informed voter on which the strength of a democracy depends.
The only workable answer to this issue is for Congress to be allowed to set limits on spending relating to campaigns—by the campaigns themselves; by all others, whether individuals, corporations, or super PACs, whether coordinated with the campaigns or not; and the totality of spending for either side. The totality of money being spent on campaigns has become obscene as well as individual insertions of money, whether by an Elon Musk or various super PACs.
This. however. would not be a guaranteed fix. Complicating the problem is that with the advent of cable television and the internet, people often choose to listen to the media outlet that they are comfortable with, and so are not challenged with opposing points of view; for them there is no marketplace of ideas. And for this problem, there is no legislative solution.
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
Load More