Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

USA flag on pole during daytime

Photo by Zetong Li on Unsplash

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

I’m excited to start this series by highlighting an interview with Julia Roig, the Chief Network Weaver for the Horizons Project. Julia brings extensive experience working for democratic change around the world, and her work at the Horizons Project focuses on supporting and building the broader pro-democracy ecosystem.


Julia provided her candid thoughts on what is needed at this moment in the field, expressing an urgent need for actors to both deliberately work together and change their approaches- which she is nervous is not happening enough. Some of her main ideas (which you can watch in the video below):

  • Exploring the tension between peacebuilding vs resistance: Horizon’s original purpose was squarely to combat polarization and promote peacebuilding. Currently, they are working with actors engaged in resistance work. These approaches can sometimes seem in tension with each other.

    Julia noted the balance between lowering the heat (combatting polarization) and raising the heat (resistance)- but ideally ensuring that actors are in lockstep rather than in tension. Julia noted that she has a sticky on her desk from a conversation she had in which someone told her, “I don’t care about the ecosystem,” to remind her of the magnitude of the challenge;

  • The ecosystem can be seen as a jazz band: Julia talked about the pro-democracy movement as a jazz band in which everyone plays different instruments, there’s not a song sheet, there’s no conductor, but everyone is generally moving in the same direction.

    “Not everybody has to do everything. I’m actually not even asking people to change their lanes. And yet we do need to figure out how we fit together.”

  • The field needs to change: Julia was concerned that actors in the movement were not thinking or acting differently amid the changing contexts. She noted, "We are living in a different country today than we were a month ago, and I'm not sure that I see enough people pivoting or even having the conversations about what's needed to be pivoting.”

    Julia warned that an organizational retrenchment is happening right now, potentially precisely because there’s so much uncertainty. She noted, “Honestly, what I'm experiencing right now is more entrenchment within these different kinds of theories of change, these different fields…Everybody's freaking out of their minds right now. No one is their best self. And if you're not your best self, and you're totally operating on Lizard Brain.”

    She went on to note, “We are making the same mistakes. I mean, that's the issue. When do we pause to have a bigger conversation? When is that going to happen?”

- YouTubeyoutu.be

The broader points that Julia continues to hammer home are that the field needs to work together, think differently, and both push back against immediate threats while taking a step back to think about the long term. Challenging but vital requests at this moment.

As I proceed in this research, I realize that many of us are potentially falling into the trap of feeling shocked and awed, which keeps us confused, overwhelmed, and divided in our efforts. Yes, there’s a need to act in the immediate, but I think Julia is onto something with the field’s inability to think and act differently in the moment.

Please listen to Julia’s powerful interview and share your thoughts or ideas on “A Path Forward for the Pro-Democracy Community." Please get in touch.

We must pivot if we are to be successful.

Executive Editor's Notes: We invite you to subscribe to the Fulcrum's YouTube channel, where you will find thought-provoking and engaging conversations about what matters most in protecting and nurturing democracy.

Scott's next interview with Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner , will be published on Thursday, March 13.

Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.

SUGGESTIONS:

A Path Forward for the Pro-Democracy Community

A Democracy Reform Movement- If we can define it

Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less