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.


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

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