Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is the 2024 race really a choice between Scylla and Charybdis?

Computer-generated art of a ship trying to avoid monsters

Odysseus attempts to avoid Scylla and Charybdis.

MR1805/Getty Images

Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation” and serves on the Business Council at Business for America. This is the first entry in a 10-part series on the American schism.

What were our Founders’ greatest fears when they shaped the American experiment in the 18th century? The same qualms they wrote about extensively before the Revolutionary War came to a head in the years between the Spirit of ’76 and the Constitutional Convention.

By 1787, with the war over, the mission at the convention was straightforward: Operationalize the new country’s credo, which had been issued 11 years earlier in the Declaration of Independence. Clearly the Articles of Confederation were failing to address the mounting problems. With a war debt sky high and the lack of a coherent foreign policy or ability to marshal an army, the pressing difficulties on the ground threatened the very endurance of the new nation.

While each of our founders had a unique perspective, there was an overriding fear they shared as they crafted this blueprint: democracy. They felt that a democratic model requiring citizens to elect representatives to advocate on their behalf was a model that carried great risk and was prone to misuse by rabble-rousing troublemakers. They were concerned that oratorically gifted scoundrels could disguise selfish or malicious motives in a veil of populism. They feared the very mob rule that only a few years later would ensue during America’s sister revolution, when the Reign of Terror took hold in France.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


And because they feared the mob, many eschewed democracy. Their ideal government design was a Montesquieuian balance of powers, which allowed our Founders to forge the great compromise delineated in the Constitution. The resulting motley stew of social contract fragments could hardly be called elegant. (As an aside, the Founders knew this blueprint could never be set in stone, that it would necessitate continual adaptation by every generation. So much for originalism.)

The mixed model was clearly not a pure democracy. It featured a strong executive, a king but in name only; an aristocratic ruling class, appointed by the individual states and wielding tremendous power; and one structural component embodying representative democracy to share the legislative responsibility.

So how well has the blueprint served us over the last 230 years?

Talk about a glass half full. Nonetheless, despite a multifaceted succession of challenges triggered by inconceivable transformations of our world, I maintain that we are still the longest and greatest experiment in self-government in recorded history. For those on the left and the right who seem all too ready to throw it away, albeit for quite different reasons, and to all those on the both the left and the right who imagine our democracy is imperfect but working and thus requires no change – my message to you is simple: Get real.

A huge swath of eligible voters fails to believe that Donald Trump poses a serious threat not only to these governing norms and institutions, but to the model that has served us so well. Despite a string of indictments, according to recent polls, there is a very good chance that Trump will get another term in the White House. Moreover, almost all Americans are extremely unhappy with this choice. How do we explain the pickle we are in?

In this 10-part series I will explore 10 different perspectives on the American schism in 2024. (Think of this as a top 10 list – one unavoidably biased).No individual installment of these theses can be proven to be the dominant cause of our predicament. Yet at the same time I believe each one has played a significant part in molding this conundrum. One caveat: I suggest no particular order or ranking since the effects of each cumulate or compound on top of others.

Here is the first: This matchup between Trump and President Joe Biden is perceived as a choice between Scylla and Charybdis. In “The Odyssey,” Odysseus is forced to decide which of the mythological monsters he will face on his voyage home from the Trojan War – both promising a disastrous outcome. However, any clear-eyed examination of the 2024 data reveals the degree to which this is a false equivalency.

Even if one makes a fact-based argument that the Biden presidency has not been successful in its objectives, one cannot equate the risks that each candidate presents to our republic. Trump has virtually promised to continue his assault on our democratic institutions, and to sow hatred and division. In these dimensions, Biden is his polar opposite.

But this juxtaposition is not reflected in the political calculus so far. Too few on the center right believe that Trump poses the unprecedented threat as understood by a small cadre of conservatives like former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.). On the contrary, most do his bidding. Thus even though most Democrats and some independents worry about Biden’s age and wish he would not run again, they have a greater dread of Trump 2.0. On the other hand, the federal and state leadership on the right continues to fashion the would-be emperor as donning beautiful clothes.

This reflects on the ultimate relationship between reality and perception. In today’s America, the former only matters to the degree it affects the later.

Stay tuned for the next nine in the list.

Read More

Meet the change leaders: Scott Klug

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

After a 14-year career as an Emmy-winning reporter, Scott Klug upset a 32-year Democratic House member from Wisconsin in 1990. Despite winning four elections with an average of 63 percent of the vote, he stayed true to his term limit pledge and retired in January 1999.

But during his time in office, Klug says, he had the third most independent voting record of any member of Congress from Wisconsin in the last 50 years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ken Powley
Team Democracy

Meet the change leaders: Ken Powley

Nevins is co-publisher ofThe Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of theBridge Alliance Education Fund.

Ken Powley and Chris Newlon founded Team Democracy in early 2021. Its signature initiative is the nonpartisan Safe and Fair Election Pledge. The pledge is designed to create an important piece of common ground where Americans — including their elected representatives — can join together from opposite sides of the aisle in committing themselves to protecting the most essential guardrails of American democracy: safe and fair elections, and the peaceful transfer of power.

Keep ReadingShow less

Meet the change leaders: Pearce Godwin

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Pearce Godwin is founder of the Listen First Project and the #ListenFirst Coalition of 500 organizations bringing Americans together across differences to listen, understand each other and discover common interests.

He catalyzes the movement to save America from toxic polarization by shifting social norms from division, distrust, contempt and violence toward connection, understanding and belonging. Pearce manages large-scale, co-created endeavors such as Meeting of America and the annual National Week of Conversation to engage as many Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs as possible to turn down the heat and find a way forward together.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tim Walz speaking at a rally

The Dignity Index scored politicians, such as Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, on their language.

Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images

Bipartisan citizens panel issues new Dignity Index scores

UNITE, a nonprofit created to ease the country's political divisions, on Sept. 20 released the second round of scores from its national citizen's panel analyzing political speech. The latest results offer support for founder Tim Shriver's idea of a political "dignity strategy."

"When our political parties use the contempt strategy — demonizing their opponents to energize their supporters — it has an unintended effect," said Shriver, who founded UNITE in 2018. "It turns away the voters they need to win. The candidate that can treat the other side with dignity has a better chance of winning the swing voters who may decide this election."

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debating

"The contempt strategy demands that you look down on the other side, make fun of them, call them names, question their motives, attack their character and mock their values," writes Shriver, who argues that It's time to try something different.

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The contempt strategy can change

Shriver is the chairman of Special Olympics, founder and CEO of UNITE, and co-creator of the Dignity Index.

On Sept. 17, I went on Fox News to talk about a “dignity strategy” that I designed with my Dignity Index co-creator, Tom Rosshirt. We think it could make a difference for any candidate willing to take it up. What do you think?

It is a late-game strategy that could help either candidate win the White House, but it’s something neither has tried before because it’s the absolute opposite of the typical political playbook.

Keep ReadingShow less