Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Moving beyond divisiveness: Building a stronger republic

Moving beyond divisiveness: Building a stronger republic
Getty Images

Kristina Becvar is the Chief Operating Officer of the Bridge Alliance.

“It’s not a democracy.”


The above provocative statement was the first comment made on a social media post Monday sharing this week’s Fulcrum post on Juneteenth and the intersection of art, politics, and American identity. The comment accomplished exactly what it was intended to do - completely ignoring the content of the article, a nuanced discussion of how art and politics reflect each other, and instead making a declarative statement that is divisive enough to make people think twice about engaging and effectively preventing conversation. That’s the power of the words we choose to use when discussing American politics, and social media has been an incubator for people to learn how to employ the red herring tactic of diverting attention from the real issue by focusing instead on a subject that has only a vague relevance, if any relevance at all, to the real issue. This technique allows the perpetrator to feel as if they “won” something in a discussion without having to get curious or engage in thoughtful deliberation.

Is the United States a democracy? Absolutely. Is it also a republic? Yes to that too. Our society is being conditioned to view those complementary concepts as opposing forces, the false dichotomy fueling tribalism and diverting attention from critical issues. Debating word choice in this manner is a tactic being spread by anti-democratic folks to shore up opposition to voting rights, voter access reforms, casting a shadow on movements that aim to strengthen democracy. Recognizing that a republic is a representative democracy, we must not let word choice distract us from the fundamental question: Does America truly function as a healthy representative democracy? A candid assessment reveals that there is work to be done. So how do we move past the playbook of using divisive words and tactics to derail discussions on how to make America live up to the best version of ourselves?

To navigate these challenges, we can draw inspiration from successful strategies implemented by democracies worldwide. The Election Reformers Network and the Alliance for Securing Democracy have recently released a report showcasing innovative approaches that can combat polarization and mistrust within democratic systems. By embracing these innovative ideas and adapting them to our unique context, we can forge a more inclusive and participatory society.

One of the pillars of work among many Bridge Alliance members is that of finding unity within divided communities, and we recognize that unity is often best achieved through local, community-based connections. Recognizing the significance of civic literacy, we acknowledge that quality discourse and informed citizens are essential for countering simplistic talking points and inflammatory rhetoric. By equipping ourselves with civic knowledge, we can strengthen the very foundations of our country. Our collective efforts can help us move beyond being pulled into the linguistic trenches and toward creating a future where America lives up to its fullest potential.

So, let us remain engaged and curious as we strive towards a stronger republic. By fostering unity, embracing innovation, and pursuing civic knowledge, we can build a more robust democracy that reflects the ideals upon which our nation was founded.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less