Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Rev. F. Willis Johnson

Americans wrapped in a flag
Citizens are united and legislators don’t represent us
SeventyFour

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.

The second interview of this series took place with Reverend F. Willis Johnson, an entrepreneur and an elder in the West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church in Columbus, Ohio. Reverend Johnson provided a religious and spiritual perspective on the needs of this moment, which is different from many organizations that often receive outsized attention.



- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Reverend Johnson emphasized the importance of local, relational action while casting doubt on the national pro-democracy space. Some of his main ideas included:

  • The “Pro-democracy” language might not resonate: Much of Reverend Johnson’s work is on the ground in Columbus, Ohio. He sees the work he’s leading as part of the bridging sphere and bringing people into a deep community, but he does not use “pro-democracy” rhetoric, nor do people on the ground.

    It can be difficult to build a field when the “pro-democracy” language is seen as elitist or partisan. As Reverend Johnson noted, “I mean, everything in the field is convoluted. The language is convoluted principally because everybody is either sensitive or offended by whatever the language choice is of the other.”
  • There is a risk that the field and ecosystem are becoming too top-heavy: Reverend Johnson warned that too many resources are flowing to national organizations that aren’t necessarily on the front lines. As the “pro-democracy” industry gets professionalized, Reverend Johnson cautioned that the professionals are becoming better compensated and less in touch with the reality on the ground.

    As he noted, now “you got a organization with a million dollar budget with three people, and it's heavy at the top and nobody at the bottom….That that is fueled and focused on survival, not on the strengthening and of the forwarding of a real agenda.”

    The balance between organizational survival, raising dollars, and doing the necessary work is important for all involved in the field. As he noted, “Money does not dictate whether or not we do ministry.” There can be a concern that money is dictating too much of the work in the field right now.
  • The field also may not be reaching everyday Americans: Reverend Johnson also warned that the pro-democracy field is becoming a “boutique” cottage industry, appealing to elites rather than the concerns of everyday Americans. Reverend Johnson noted, “Everybody wants to be Versace and Louis Vuitton. It’s not gonna work that day. Somebody’s got to be Old Navy.”

Reverend Johnson provided critical feedback for the field, but feedback that needs to be heard. Coming from an elite academic institute, I find his warning that the “pro-democracy” space is becoming too professionalized and too niche important to reflect upon.

A decade ago, much of the work that would be constituted as “pro-democracy” was happening in communities across the country without that nomenclature. Now, as the field matures, so do large national organizations bringing in tremendous amounts of resources. However, whether that professionalization leads to actual impact is an entirely different question that needs to be examined more closely.

Yes, people need to be compensated, and some of the professionalization that Reverend Johnson warns about is inevitable as ecosystems emerge. But there is a risk that funders are dictating too much of the work, and we’re not seeing enough progress.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


Please watch Reverend Johnson’s interview and share your thoughts. We must ensure we’re listening to and working with everyday Americans rather than in our echo chambers.

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.

Look for Scott's next interview on Thursday, March 20.

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:

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

A Path Forward for the Pro-Democracy Community

A Democracy Reform Movement- If we can define it

Read More

Democrats are from Mars, Republicans are from Venus

A simulation of two planets in space.

Getty Images, Jose A. Bernat Bacete

Democrats are from Mars, Republicans are from Venus

As I think about Tuesday’s address by President Donald Trump and the response of Senator Elissa Slotkin from Michigan—a former CIA analyst and a rising star in the Democratic Party—I am reminded of the book “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” by John Gray published in 1992.

A sequel should be written today: “Democrats Are from Mars, Republicans Are from Venus”…..or vice versa since the planet they each are from doesn’t matter.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

USA flag on pole during daytime

Photo by Zetong Li on Unsplash

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
One party worked harder to build a bigger tent in 2024
Getty Images, tadamichi

One party worked harder to build a bigger tent in 2024

Democrats keep pointing fingers for reasons they lost last November. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new role leading the Department of Health and Human Services underscores an important factor deserving more attention: Democrats spent millions trying to bully Kennedy, Jill Stein, and other insurgents off the ballot rather than respect their supporters. They treated it as a strategic masterstroke, but their anti-democratic bet was a miscalculation.

In a change election resulting in the closest popular vote since 2000, hypocrisy was a fatal sin. Democrats would have benefited from embracing competition and building a bigger tent of their own, not fighting against voter choice. It was not enough to stand up for the rule of law and protection of voting rights. To build a majority in today’s America, one must embrace voter choice.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Imperative for Faith-Informed Response

Someone reading a sermon.

Pexels, Pavel Danilyuk

The Imperative for Faith-Informed Response

In the early days of this second Trump presidency, I'm reminded that religious leaders often speak of hope, but now we must do so with urgency and clarity. What we're witnessing isn't just political transition—it's moral regression dressed in the garments of restoration.

When a president speaks of a "golden age" on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we must name the idolatry in such rhetoric. Golden ages, historically, have always been golden for some at the expense of many. Dr. King didn't dream of a return to any past era; he envisioned a future yet unrealized.

Keep ReadingShow less