BridgeUSA is an investment in the future of American democracy. We champion ideological diversity, promote a solution-oriented political culture, and teach responsible discourse in order to develop a generation of political leaders that value empathy and constructive engagement. Our organization works with America's future leaders on college campuses to foster spaces wherein a diverse range of ideas can engage one another through the practice of responsible discourse.
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
High view over Pacific heights and San Francisco Bay at sunset
Getty Images
Class A for Residents, Class B for Investors
Nov 14, 2026
Neighborhood residents should be able to build ownership without surrendering control to whoever brings the largest check. I propose a neighborhood corporation with Class A shares for residents and Class B shares for outside investors. Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow could examine the first model, then make its documents and lessons available to other neighborhoods.
The distinction must mean something. Class A would protect resident governance. Class B would let outside capital participate on disclosed economic terms. The corporation would own assets it voluntarily acquires and operate agreed services. It would govern those assets and contracts; government authority over zoning, taxes and public streets would remain subject to public law.
Every eligible adult resident should be able to obtain a Class A share at a modest cost, with a hardship arrangement so money does not exclude participation. Renters and homeowners would qualify equally. A resident who operates a local business would qualify through residence. Outside business and property owners would participate through Class B.
One eligible resident would have one governance vote, regardless of investment size. Residents would elect a majority of volunteer directors and approve major changes to the company’s purpose, resident control and sale of essential assets. The final charter would need reviewed voting provisions that make these protections legally effective.
Class A transfers would be restricted to eligible residents. The rules must explain what happens when someone moves, dies or loses eligibility, including valuation and any redemption process. Publish a defined neighborhood boundary and a fair eligibility review. Nobody should discover after investing that an undefined rule can erase their rights.
Class B investors would receive the economic rights specified in the offering, potentially including distributions from earnings and a stated position when assets are sold. They would have no ordinary voting control. Legally required protective rights would remain. Buying more Class B shares would not automatically convert money into resident votes.
The business must earn its place. Begin by testing a shared neighborhood services business, such as coordinating maintenance purchases for participating merchants and property owners. Publish demand estimates, supplier quotes, fees, operating costs and insurance. Existing homes and businesses would join only through voluntary contracts. A corporate share would not confer ownership of a neighbor’s building.
Before choosing that first business, ask residents and merchants what they already pay for, what service is missing and whether they would sign a contract at the proposed price. Publish competing supplier quotes and proposed service fees. Directors with an interest in a supplier should disclose it and leave the decision. A useful service should prove demand before raising acquisition capital.
An illustrative operating test could serve fifty customers paying $100 monthly, producing $60,000 annual revenue. If administration, suppliers, insurance and services cost $54,000, only $6,000 would remain before tax and reserves. These are assumptions for discussion. They demonstrate how narrow a margin can be, not a forecast or promised return.
At thirty customers, the same fee would produce $36,000, leaving an $18,000 shortfall against those costs. Before spending, show which expenses could shrink, how much working capital is required and when the board would stop a losing project. Property acquisition would require a separate appraisal, financing plan and budget.
Run the corporation with the financial discipline residents expect from a publicly traded company. Publish quarterly accounts, debts, executive compensation and transactions involving directors or their relatives. Hold an annual meeting with questions from shareholders. Arrange an independent annual financial review or audit appropriate to its size and legal obligations.
A public stock market listing would be a later decision with its own offering, reporting and trading requirements. The Securities and Exchange Commission explains that securities offerings generally require registration or an applicable exemption. A neighborhood purpose does not waive those rules. No shares are being offered or issued through this proposal.
Redemption needs equal clarity. State who can request repayment, how shares are valued, permitted windows, reserves and limits. Explain what happens if several people seek cash together or the corporation cannot lawfully pay. A share certificate must identify enforceable rights and financial risks. It cannot honestly promise instant repayment from money that does not exist.
The volunteer Community DataBank would provide an information foundation. Its $7,520 public service pilot would maintain resident contacts by consent, decision files and spending records. Any City grant would pay only for approved public purposes. Investment proceeds and company operations would have separate accounts, budgets and responsibilities.
Allow another $25,000 to prepare the ownership proposal: $12,000 for corporate, securities and redemption feasibility; $5,000 for accounting and a business model; $3,000 for resident governance meetings and documents; $2,000 for a shareholder register; and $3,000 contingency. These are planning allowances, with professional quotes still needed.
Seek founding contributions or grants whose terms permit that preparation. The combined DataBank and preparation allowance would be $32,520. It excludes buying property, conducting a share offering, operating the company and listing on an exchange. Additional public money would require its own authorized public purpose and approved terms.
Ask the two neighborhood associations to invite residents through their own newsletters. Preserve their private email lists. Hold open meetings where supporters and skeptics can examine the same draft charter and numbers. People who buy no shares would retain access to publicly funded information and ordinary civic participation.
The Fillmore’s reported surviving stock certificates give this proposal a serious responsibility. Their original promises and alleged loss of control require investigation. Our own documents should make ownership, voting, transfers and redemption understandable before anyone contributes money. Residents should be able to replace directors who break the rules.
Outside investment can help finance useful work when its rights are clear and residents retain meaningful control. Begin with a small business people actually want, publish the losses as readily as the profits, and expand only when the accounts justify it. The neighborhood should understand precisely what it owns and how it can keep it.
Sources and editorial notes
Prepared for Doug Comstock | Sources checked October 23 2026
Article text 980 words excluding title byline and these notes
This is a proposed ownership model, not an investment solicitation. No corporation has been formed or shares offered. Resident directors and the DataBank team would serve as volunteers. The share classes, eligibility, voting, economic rights, transfers and redemption rules require corporate, securities and tax review before adoption.
Offers and sales of shares
The SEC states that securities offers and sales require registration or an available exemption. The appropriate route depends on the final issuer, investors and terms; calling an enterprise a neighborhood corporation does not choose an exemption.
SEC exempt offerings • California DFPI securities oversight
Public reporting and trading
The SEC distinguishes a registered public offering, reporting obligations and listing standards. The article proposes financial transparency as an operating practice; an actual public offering or exchange listing would be a separate undertaking.
Proposed partners and recruitment
The associations are prospective partners. Each would need to agree before its own newsletter could invite residents. Existing private subscriber lists would remain with the associations.
Pacific Heights Residents Association • Cow Hollow Association
Financial assumptions
The operating example is illustrative: 50 customers × $100 × 12 months = $60,000; $54,000 assumed costs leave $6,000 before tax and reserves. At 30 customers, $36,000 revenue leaves an $18,000 shortfall. The additional preparation allowances total $25,000; with the volunteer DataBank’s $7,520 cash budget, combined preparation and pilot costs are $32,520. These figures exclude acquisition capital, an offering, exchange listing and ongoing company operations.
Rights and historical accounts still to be established
Class A economic rights and Class B distributions and claims must be specified alongside voting protections. The labels alone create no protection. Redemption depends on lawful terms and available funds. The Fillmore barbershop certificates and alleged loss of control are the author’s reported account; original certificates and company records have not been examined.
John van Sicklen Maeck II is a writer based in San Francisco.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) speaks during a hearing with the House Committee on Homeland Security in the Cannon House Office Building on December 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Why Democrats Should (Ironically) Listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene Right Now
Nov 14, 2026
On a recent episode of conservative commentator Tim Pool’s podcast, former US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene responded to the near 40-point swing among young white men to Democrats in the 2026 midterm.
Her message: They don’t care about party. They want people in office who will do something for them.
“That’s what Fox News doesn’t get and a lot of these good ole GOPers and establishment Republican people,” she said. “They don’t understand that no one really cares anymore. It’s literally, ‘what are you going to do for me?’”
- YouTube youtu.be
Regardless of how one feels about Greene, she has a point, and it is a lesson not just for Republicans, but Democrats as well.
The lingering question after the election is, how are Democrats going to perceive this victory?
If they perceive it as a mandate to push whatever policy they want, or a realignment of young voters or Latino voters, then they failed to understand what happened in this election.
What Americans witnessed was a massive rebuke of failed promises on bringing down prices, on making the US feel more affordable, on no wars,. and on tougher immigration enforcement that would target only serious criminals.
This wasn’t just seen among voters on the left, but people who voted for Trump and aligned-MAGA candidates because they wanted someone who would actually deliver.
Author and GOP consultant Mike Madrid called what happened with the Latino vote a dealignment, not a realignment. The same can be said for young white men too who aligned with a political movement, but rejected it when their concerns weren’t addressed.
The mistake both parties make is they feel they are entitled to certain votes.
The Democratic Party believes they are entitled to the ballots of young people, Latinos, black communities, and other groups that showed in 2024 that they can’t be taken for granted.
The Republican Party believes it is entitled to control states like Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina, etc. But if voters sent one clear message on and immediately after Election Day, it is that the parties do not own anyone’s vote.
Or in Greene’s words, “No one cares anymore.”
Nearly half of the national electorate identifies as independent. Political pundits often scoff at that figure and say independent voters are a myth. In the end, they will always align with one party or the other.
This election, more than any other in recent memory, proved them wrong.
As Open Primaries Senior Vice President Jeremy Gruber noted in a commentary piece published on IVN:
“Independent voters turned out in force. Texas saw record-breaking early voting, with more than 7.7 million people casting ballots before Election Day. Early turnout analysis also showed independent voters participating at rates exceeding Democrats and Republicans. And when the votes were counted, independents broke decisively for Democratic candidates in some of the most consequential races in the country.
“They went 63% for James Talarico in Texas, 62% for Sherrod Brown in Ohio, 64% for Annie Andrews in South Carolina and 64% for Adam Hamilton in Kansas. In statewide contests, they supported Sand in Iowa by 65% and Gina Hinojosa in Texas by 59%.
“These weren’t marginal differences. These were the votes that changed the map.”
CNN host Michael Smerconish had these additional data points on his SiriusXM Radio show Wednesday:
“18-29-year-olds are 38% independent. In the midterm they voted Democratic 73%-25%. First time voters—37% independent—voted Democratic 65-35. Nonvoters from 2024 who voted in ‘26, 51% independent. They voted Democratic 70-25.”
- YouTube youtu.be
The risk is that Democrats will ignore independent voters, as the parties regularly do until they need their votes, and make the same mistake Republicans did after 2024 and assume they are now entitled to conduct party politics as usual.
Many voters didn’t vote for Democrats. They voted against the party in power that didn’t deliver.
Greene used the analogy of hiring a contractor to remodel her kitchen. “He comes in and tears up the kitchen and throws everything in my front yard and leaves an entire mess and doesn’t do the job,” she said.
“Am I going to be upset that I have to go out and find someone else? No! I am going to fire that guy, not pay him a dime, and I am going to go out and find the next competent construction company that will come in and give me a beautiful kitchen.”
The only thing missing from her analogy is that the system is designed in such a way that there are only two contractors to choose from because the industry has intentionally been shaped to squash any other companies from being competitive.
But that is the warning for both parties.
Democrats can celebrate their massive wins in 2026, but if voters see politics as usual, some of those gains will be erased in the next cycle. They cannot get too comfortable or feel they are now entitled to control.
It is the same warning to Democrats I had immediately after the election a week ago on the Independent Voter Podcast:
- YouTube youtu.be
Or as it was simply summed up: “Don’t fumble the bag.” Both parties have to earn the votes they get. They have to earn the chance that voters —who are increasingly demonstrating their independence in greater numbers—give them.
And not mess it up if they want to keep their seats.
Why Democrats Should (Ironically) Listen to Marjorie Taylor Greene Right Now is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
A demonstrator holds a sign in front of the Federal Courthouse in Detroit, Michigan.
(Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
Beyond Airstrikes: Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria
Nov 13, 2026
When American forces carried out airstrikes against suspected Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the operation offered a glimpse of renewed security cooperation between Washington and Abuja. But for Nigerians living in communities threatened by terrorism, kidnapping and armed attacks, a more pressing question remained: Would the strikes make their lives any safer?
That question deserves attention in Washington. The United States has spent decades helping Nigeria combat terrorism through military equipment, intelligence sharing and training. Yet armed violence continues to disrupt everyday life across northern Nigeria, raising doubts about how the success of American counterterrorism assistance should be measured.
The December operation followed a diplomatic confrontation after President Donald Trump accused Nigeria of failing to protect Christians and threatened military intervention. Nigeria subsequently welcomed American assistance, leading to coordinated strikes against suspected militants in Sokoto State.
Military strikes can disrupt terrorist operations, destroy equipment and eliminate commanders. But they cannot, by themselves, guarantee the safety of communities or restore confidence in government institutions.
The United States and Nigeria have maintained security cooperation for more than five decades. According to a 2024 State Department fact sheet, Washington had $590 million in active government-to-government military sales cases with Nigeria. Major transactions included a $497 million sale of 12 A-29 Super Tucano aircraft and a $997 million sale of 12 AH-1Z attack helicopters.
Between fiscal years 2019 and 2023, the United States also provided more than $8 million in counterterrorism training, equipment and advisory support, alongside approximately $5 million for international military education and training. These figures cover different programs and stages of assistance, rather than a single amount already spent.
The partnership extends beyond weapons. It includes military professionalization, intelligence cooperation, border security and efforts to improve accountability within Nigeria's security institutions.
These investments have strengthened areas of Nigeria's military capacity but the continued vulnerability of civilians raises a larger question: What should count as success?
In northeastern Nigeria, Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) have sustained an insurgency that has devastated communities around the Lake Chad Basin. In the northwest, armed bandit networks have expanded kidnapping for ransom, cattle rustling and attacks on rural settlements. Although some groups operate in overlapping areas, their motivations and organizational structures differ.
That distinction matters treating every armed group as a terrorist organization risks overlooking the criminal economies, local grievances and failures of law enforcement that sustain different forms of violence.
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project (ACLED) reported more than 400 kidnapping incidents across northwest Nigeria in 2026 by the time of its analysis. In June, at least 39 civilians were abducted in Maradun, Zamfara State, after reportedly traveling to negotiate improved relations with an armed group.
A separate ACLED assessment found that armed bandits accounted for more than 80 percent of recorded mass abductions since the beginning of 2025.
These figures do not establish that American counterterrorism operations have failed. They demonstrate that Nigeria's civilian-security crisis extends well beyond the militant organizations targeted by airstrikes.
Having reported on terrorism and violent conflict in northern Nigeria, I have seen how insecurity affects communities beyond the immediate violence. Farmers struggle to access their fields, families live with uncertainty, and residents face restrictions on movement that interfere with ordinary economic and social life.
For people living under these conditions, security is measured less by the number of militants killed than by whether they can travel safely, earn a living and send their children to school.
This is where Washington should reconsider its approach.
The United States and Nigeria have already recognized the importance of broader security reforms. During the 2024 U.S.–Nigeria Binational Commission, both governments committed to deepening military and law enforcement cooperation while protecting civilians, respecting human rights and strengthening democratic institutions.
They proposed a standing security working group and closer cooperation on border and aviation security, terrorist financing, criminal investigations and explosives detection. They also discussed specialized police units to respond to kidnappings, improved police complaint mechanisms, crime mapping, police reform and stronger criminal justice institutions.
Their commitments extended to civilian harm prevention, community peacebuilding, farmer–herder conflict resolution and protection of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and religious liberty.
These agreements offer a starting point for measuring whether cooperation is improving everyday security. Washington should press for transparent assessments of civilian casualties, kidnapping trends, accountability for abuses and the ability of displaced communities to return safely.
It should also support Nigerian institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting violent crimes, rather than relying predominantly on military responses.
Religious freedom must remain part of this policy. But Nigeria's security crisis cannot be understood exclusively through attacks against Christians. Muslims have also suffered extensively from terrorism and banditry. A policy focused on protecting all civilians would better address the country's complex security realities.
The stakes extend beyond Nigeria. As Africa's most populous country and an influential regional democracy, Nigeria plays an important role in West African stability and international cooperation. Persistent insecurity weakens public confidence in elected leaders, disrupts civic participation and creates opportunities for armed groups to exercise influence where state institutions are absent.
For the United States, supporting Nigeria therefore involves more than defeating terrorist organizations. It means helping a democratic partner build institutions that citizens can trust.
A stronger bilateral relationship should connect security assistance with civilian protection, public accountability and sustained diplomatic engagement. Such cooperation would demonstrate that American foreign policy can support democratic governance while confronting violent extremism.
Ultimately, the success of U.S.-Nigeria counterterrorism cooperation should be judged by whether Nigerians can live without fear, participate freely in civic life and trust the government institutions responsible for their safety. Until those outcomes become central measures of progress, even successful airstrikes will remain an incomplete answer to Nigeria's security crisis.
Idris Mohammed is a Ph.D. student at the University of Alabama concentrating in Journalism & Creative Media and a fall Fulcrum Fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
Residents vote at polling station in St. Timothy's Episcopal Church on November 03, 2026 in West Des Moines, Iowa.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The Fork in the Road: What the 2026 Midterms Mean for MAGA, Democrats, and the GOP
Nov 13, 2026
The political earthquake of the 2026 midterm elections has left Washington, DC, in a state of whiplash, delivering a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration and fracturing the expansive coalition that carried him to the White House just two years ago. For Donald Trump, his inner circle, and his most ardent followers, the message from the American electorate is unmistakable: the governing chaos, policy overreaches, and exhausting political theater of the last two years will not fly for the next two
Instead of showing humility following a historic defeat, the president’s immediate elevation of immigration hardliner Stephen Miller to White House Chief of Staff signals a defiant doubling down rather than a constructive course correction. For millions of voters—including the critical Latino demographics alienated by the administration's aggressive deportation campaigns—Miller’s promotion feels like a structural mistake that will only deepen the administration's isolation. If MAGA is to survive past Trump’s tenure, the movement must undergo a radical transformation, moving away from unilateral aggression and toward sustainable governance. As former conservative acolyte Rod Dreher soberly observed following the wreckage of the midterms, “MAGA couldn't deliver on good government. And if you can't deliver on good government, it doesn't matter how charismatic the leader is. It's not going to work.”
At the same time, Democrats must resist the tempting delusion that these midterm victories signal the definitive end of populism. It would be a catastrophic mistake to misread a rejection of administrative chaos as a sweeping endorsement of progressive ideology. Let us be clear: half of the country voted for Trump in 2024 largely because of the crippling economic pressures and inflation felt at the end of the Biden administration. Just as in 2016, millions of everyday Americans chose Trump not out of malice, but because they genuinely believe parts of the progressive agenda have drifted too far into radicalism, leaving traditional values and economic anxieties behind. Warning his party against taking the wrong lessons from their victory, Senator Cory Booker cautioned, “If we make Donald Trump the center of our focus, we will lose this moment in history. We need to deal with the American people's problems.”
Traditional Republicans, meanwhile, face an existential crisis after completely losing their institutional identity to a single leader. Unconditional capitulation to Trumpism has left the party hollowed out, punished at the ballot box by voters craving stability and principled leadership. For the GOP, the time for blind deference is over if they wish to remain a viable national force. As a post-election analysis from RealClearPolicy bluntly summarized, “It's time to look past Donald Trump... the GOP must begin rebuilding a governing coalition around the principles of liberty, constitutional government, economic opportunity, family, and national purpose – or, Republicans will become a feeble, permanent opposition.”
We have arrived at a critical fork in the road for all three political factions. MAGA must choose between evolution or extinction. Democrats must choose between pragmatic moderation or alienating the very swing voters who just handed them a lifeline. And traditional Republicans must decide whether they will reclaim their principles or continue to exist as a hollowed-out vessel.
The path to the White House in 2028 will not be won by the faction that executes the most ruthless political strategy, but by the leaders who listen to the true will of The People.
Americans are fatigued by a useless, unending political tug-of-war designed solely to retain institutional power. The next chapter of American politics belongs to those who stop fighting for total ideological dominance and instead roll up their sleeves to solve our collective societal ills.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More