There were plenty of surprises during the 2022 campaign. But what were the two biggest plot twists?
Find out in the grand finale to C-SPAN's coverage of Campaign 2022.
As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, the global data we collect and analyze shows that the country is failing to “promote the general Welfare,” as the Constitution’s framers promised a little more than a decade later.
We are scholars of human rights. Alongside the Human Rights Measurement Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks how well more than 200 countries and territories are meeting the human rights commitments their governments have made, we annually update scores measuring whether people can actually get the basics of a decent life, such as healthcare, adequate food and a quality education.
The latest data our team has amassed shows that the U.S. is falling short compared with what it could achieve, given its US$32 trillion economy. This is not a one-year blip – the U.S. has been underperforming for the past 25 years.
Two foundational human rights agreements, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, describe countries’ obligations to promote the welfare of their people. Countries should improve the health, education and occupational well-being of their people over time, as best they can, given their “resources.”
The United States co-authored and voted in favor of the universal declaration in 1948. Although President Jimmy Carter signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1977, U.S. lawmakers never ratified it.
Resources in this context generally mean a government’s wealth and capacity. We measure resources by using per capita gross domestic product – the amount of money in a country evenly divided among its entire population. Because rich countries, like the U.S., can do more than lower-income countries, like Haiti, they are held to a higher standard.
So we don’t just ask how healthy, well-fed or educated the people of a country are. We ask how well a country is providing for its people compared with other countries with similar resources.
A 100% score means a country is doing all it can with what it has, and further improvements would require more resources. A lower score means there’s room for improvement.
Doing all you can with what you have doesn’t mean a government has to provide goods and services directly. Governments can rely on private businesses, employers, nonprofits, public programs or a combination. What we score is the result: Are people actually getting what they need?
We compared the scores of the U.S. over time against 37 other high-income free-market based countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a forum for industrialized economies to exchange information on the best policies and practices to support growth and development. Then we calculated how many Americans would be able to have these things if the U.S. adopted better policies.
Across all five areas we track – health, food, education, work and income – the U.S. has either stalled or lost ground, relative to its own history and to its peers.
The U.S. ranks below its peer nations on health. Even Turkey and Hungary, less industrialized countries where the GDP per capita is a fraction of what it is in the U.S., have guaranteed better health outcomes for their people when compared to their resources.
Health scores indicate how well a country keeps its people alive and well, like whether children are born and stay healthy, whether adults live long lives and if the incidence of preventable diseases is kept low.
The U.S. scores about 80% of what it possibly could. By comparison, Canada scores 90%, Japan 88%, Mexico 86% and Australia 93%. Iceland scores the highest at 97%.
U.S. health scores have been relatively flat for a quarter century, rising from 79% in 2000 to a high of 82% in 2012. In 2023, it had receded to 80%. The rising scores were likely due to more Americans gaining health insurance following the Affordable Care Act’s rollout. The later decline was caused primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic.
We anticipate further declines. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 11.8 million Americans would lose access to government-subsidized health insurance due to changes in the big tax and spending package President Donald Trump signed into law in the summer of 2025. By 2034, that number is projected to rise to 17 million people.
People who have realized the right to food and adequate nutrition can reliably access affordable, healthy and nutritious food.
Our score measures the percentage of people who find themselves in that situation. The U.S. is only achieving about 81% of what it possibly could.
If the United States allocated its resources more efficiently, we estimate that roughly 14.8 million more women and 9.1 million more men would always have enough healthy food.
Among countries for which we have food security data, the U.S. ranks 30th out of 37.
Our data for the right to food in the U.S. spans 2015 to 2023. The U.S. food score fell slightly during that period, from 81.9% to 81.1%. This means that as the U.S. got wealthier, Americans got hungrier.
This score peaked in 2020, before the pandemic. Persistent inflation, rising housing costs and changes to the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program led to declines.
Signs point to the share of Americans who have access to affordable and nutritious food declining further.
About 3.4 million people lost access to food assistance from September 2025 to June 2026, also due to cuts in Trump’s 2025 legislative package.
The effects are starker in some places. In Arizona, SNAP enrollment had fallen by about half as of April 2026, with more than 400,000 people losing benefits since July 2025. The Arizonans who were still getting SNAP benefits to help them buy groceries were receiving significantly lower benefits, ProPublica reported.
Can people find work? Do they earn enough to get by? That’s what we measured for this economic right.
We set the bar at half of what a typical American household earns. By that measure, the U.S. reaches just 27% of what a country this wealthy could achieve, which is the worst score for an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member country.
It does better at creating conditions where people can find a job, scoring about 75%, ranking 10th alongside countries like the Netherlands and Iceland. But it’s still far behind leaders like South Korea and Mexico.
If the U.S. changed some policies – such as increasing the federal minimum wage – 46 million people could earn enough to rise above that fair pay line. About 5 million more would escape extreme poverty, surviving on less than $4.20 per day.
The country has been losing ground on work and pay for 25 years. After accounting for how much richer the U.S. has grown, its score fell from about 62% in 2000 to 51% today. This reflects the growth in economic inequality, with the gains in wealth skewing toward the richest Americans.
The Poor People’s Campaign holds a rally advocating for living wages, voting rights and other policies that would help poor and low-wage Americans in 2024 in Washington. Samuel Corum/Getty ImagesThe U.S. scores a 76% on the overall right to education, placing it 20th among 38 OECD countries. It’s behind Japan and the U.K. but ahead of some peers, including Canada and Norway.
We measure education through access – whether students are enrolled in school – and quality – how well they score on tests in science, math and reading.
The U.S. rates a score of 90.7% on access but only averages 61.3% on quality.
The U.S. is among the wealthiest nations in human history, but it falls far short of what that national wealth makes possible for its people – in terms of health, food, pay and what its students learn.
The reason isn’t that the country can’t afford to do better; we’ve found it’s because the U.S. doesn’t turn that wealth into opportunities for everyone to have a decent life.
Recent cuts to health insurance coverage and food assistance are pushing much of what we measure in the wrong direction.
Promoting the general welfare was written into the country’s founding promise – 250 years later, our data shows how far there still is to go.
Americans Are Not As Well Off As People in Peer Nations – Us Safety Net’s Shortfalls Show Up in Global Data was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.

People protest against the war in Iran on March 2, 2026 in New York, New York. U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States and Israel had launched an attack on Iran Saturday morning.
Deciding to go to war is as consequential a decision as any government can make. That has always been the case and is even more so at a time when the weapons of war are so lethal and destructive.
Wars are also very costly to the fabric of democracy in any nation. Whether a war of choice or a defensive conflict, the metric of success in war is victory, not popular approval.
Writing in 1944, as World War II raged, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson offered an unusually candid assessment of the inexorable tension between the military's wartime needs and the health of a constitutional republic. Jackson wrote: “It would be impracticable and dangerous idealism to expect or insist that each specific military command in an area of probable operations will conform to conventional tests of constitutionality. When an area is so beset that it must be put under military control at all, the paramount consideration is that its measures be successful, rather than legal.”
“The armed services,“ he explained, “must protect a society, not merely its Constitution. The very essence of the military job is to marshal physical force, to remove every obstacle to its effectiveness, to give it every strategic advantage. Defense measures will not, and often should not, be held within the limits that bind civil authority in peace.”
Then, as if foreseeing the current moment in American history, Jackson warned, “If the people ever let command of the war power fall into irresponsible and unscrupulous hands, the courts wield no power equal to its restraint. The chief restraint upon those who command the physical forces of the country, in the future as in the past, must be their responsibility to the political judgments of their contemporaries and to the moral judgments of history.”
Since February 28, when President Trump launched a war of choice in Iran, America has been living with the consequences of making him the Commander-in-Chief. Since a ceasefire was declared in April, the president has regularly announced that a peace deal was imminent.
But no deal has materialized, and the machinery of war has come back to life.
A headline in the June 11 edition of the New York Times got it right when it said, “U.S.-Iran Strikes Risk Dangerous New Phase.” As the Times noted, “The United States and Iran traded a new round of attacks early Thursday, bringing the countries back to the precipice of all-out war after President Trump vowed to keep up military pressure on Tehran to make a peace deal.
As gas prices rise and the global economy teeters, we are learning the hard way that the concentration of war powers in the hands of one person is dangerous, especially one as impulsive as our current president. Congress has failed, as it has so often in the past, to exercise its constitutional authority or rein in the use of military force in Iran.
But the problem is not one that can be blamed solely on our Representatives and Senators. Where are the anti-war protests, the demonstrations demanding an end to the conflict?
It is not enough for the American people to register their unhappiness with the Iranian war in public opinion polls. They have to take the kind of action that has helped end unpopular wars in the past.
Recall Jackson’s admonition about the role of the people in rendering their “political judgments.” Before saying a bit more about the history of anti-war protests in the United States, let’s recall how the Framers of the Constitution thought about war-making and democratic politics.
As a Cornell Law School report explains, “Prior to the Constitution, all of the national government’s powers under the Articles of Confederation were lodged in a single, unicameral body—the Confederation Congress. Because the Constitution divided the federal government’s power between three distinct branches, questions arose as to which branch of government should receive the Confederation Congress’s power to 'determin[e]' war and peace.”
James Madison argued that “security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society….The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.” But he warned that in a republic, the war power and the military should be “an object of laudable circumspection and precaution.”
He called that power “inauspicious” to the liberties of the people.
Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted the war power lodged exclusively with the president. Others thought that doing so would be fatal to the plan for a republic. For example, South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney opposed a plan to give the president the power to declare war. In his view, that would make the president “a Monarchy, of the worst kind….”
As they often did, the delegates ended up lodging the power to declare war in one branch, the legislative, while making the president commander in chief of America’s forces. They intended that the question of whether to go to war be left to the people acting through their elected representatives.
Because of the weightiness of that decision, they wanted it to be subject to the to and fro of democratic debate. And they did not want it to be easy to take the nation into a war.
As Professor Elaine Scarry explains, in a representative democracy, “The representatives feel empowered not only to speak on behalf of the population’s judgments and sentiments but to give away the lives of that population. The second is perhaps always entailed in the first since, by committing the country to a path of war, Congress puts lives at risk.”
Absent a declaration, the people’s voice is silenced.
But throughout American history, people have found other ways to make their voices heard on questions of war and peace. They have used their votes to back candidates who have promised to keep them out of wars.
Donald Trump was supposed to be one of those candidates. The night he was re-elected in November 2024, he promised, “I’m not going to start a war. I’m going to stop wars.”
And he pledged that he would “keep our promises. Nothing will stop me from keeping my word to you, the people.“
In his inaugural address, he doubled down on his election night commitment. “We will measure our success,” he said, “not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”
What happened to that president?
Beyond voting, the people can make their voices heard by taking to the streets in peaceful protest. As the historian Christopher Klein argues, “The history of anti-war protests in the United States is as old as the country itself. Every war in American history—even the one that spawned the country—generated internal dissent from pacifists who rejected all wars and from citizens who objected to specific military conflicts on moral, religious, political, and economic grounds.”
Klein pays particular attention to protests during the war in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He calls them “the largest and most organized anti-war movement in American history….”
Another recent spasm of anti-war protests occurred after the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. By their participation, thousands of people made it clear that they wanted the war to stop, whether or not Congress condoned it.
That was then. Today, many Americans are focused on other problems, and others are worn out or demoralized.
Understandable.
However, before we give in to those feelings, we should recall Madison’s warning that: “The strongest passions, and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”
It is now up to the American people to stand against those “passions” and “weaknesses” and for the proposition that no war should be started in our name unless our elected representatives or we consent to it. As Scarry puts it, “The grant of power by the population to the executive government was never a grant of power to give or retract the lives of millions of people, our own or other populations.”
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.

A friend recently asked if I was optimistic about the future. Not in any particular context - just one of those casual what kind of person are you kind of questions. I stopped what I was doing. Little did this inquirer know that I was in the midst of a months-long journey into the Founding era of America, and that this particular question was among the first things considered by the people we recognize as our founders. My free time had been enveloped by nonfiction, documentaries, podcasts, and reflective writing. And here, in advance of the country's 250th birthday, was the right question for, as it turned out, the right person. I took a breath and lobbed my answer back -
“Do I really have a choice?”
War moved across America’s Eastern seaboard, and one of the hottest summers on record gripped Philadelphia. The Second Continental Congress convened in early July to decide whether to approve the Declaration of Independence. The Continental Army waited in New York for the approaching full force of the Empire. The moment was upon the Congressional delegates. Some demanded independence, others hesitated. After hours of back-and-forth in the steamy State House, the delegates unanimously approved the Declaration of Independence.
Utter jubilation followed. Church bells rang, choirs sang, as a newly independent people danced in the street. John Adams promptly remarked that this was to “be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance...with Pomp and Parade, with...Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of the Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”
The American experiment was underway. It was the first true step in the Founders’ vision of self-governance. No longer did government mean kings, queens, crowns, or inherited titles passed without a nod from the governed. In an instant, the Declaration turned that world upside down. It was the first time any nation, country, kingdom, or empire was to implement a government where the power to govern is derived from the people. Today, I am one of over 340 million hereditary participants - born into a political experiment unlike any before it.
The Declaration was a product of the Enlightenment - specifically the argument that government ought to derive its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. A radical idea, brought forth by the Founders from Thomas Jefferson’s pen, ultimately reached new heights. The Declaration did two things. First, it severed America's colonial relationship with the British Empire by explicitly announcing America's independence. This was the political purpose of the Declaration. But this part of the document merely cut the cord – it was not the ink that birthed the nation. America sprang to life when Jefferson put to paper the following words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal...
This is where America took its first breath.
Even more remarkable than the uniqueness of such an assertion during an age of monarchy is the self-awareness of these words. Imagine if Jefferson had instead written, We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all white land-owning males are created equal…But he didn’t write that. The Founders understood they were confined by time and space and that they, themselves, were incapable of ever fulfilling the equality clause of the Declaration they had crafted.
But they believed future Americans could.
Newly-elected President George Washington wrote in 1790:
As mankind become more liberal they will be more apt to allow, that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the Community are equally entitled to the protection of civil Government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of justice and liberality.
Jefferson echoed the President, also in 1790, that, “the ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, that we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time, and eternally press forward for what is yet to get.”
The Founders called it the great stage of life. It is the same stage we walk today - in our cities and towns, our neighborhoods, among ourselves. Transcending time and political order, the Founders’ words remind us that those inches are ours to find. It is built into the bedrock of our lives. Where do we find them on the stage we walk today?
The great play we find ourselves a part of is never complete because the Founders’ great promise can never be fully achieved. The human condition resists any final settling of that promise. Our ability to create and nurture is matched by our capacity to tear down - total equality remains an unreachable horizon. The Founders’ task will never be completed.
And yet it is precisely this awareness, born in 1776, that makes the Declaration’s words so extraordinary. They are eternal, even as our concept of equality has evolved. So long as a single child’s face is stained by the tears of neglect - so long as a single door is shut to the beggar - so long as a single person is judged not for who they are but for what they appear to be – the stage remains beneath our feet, and we play our part as the light slowly shifts from us to the next generation.
Ours is a struggle created by, of, and for the people. All of them. It is the lives of real human beings – living and dead, then and now. It is a legacy of self-evident truths revealed only through the most twisting prejudice and excruciating pain. The broken ships of slavery. The unmarked graves on taken land. The hush of a thousand songs. We face that cracked mirror, always showing how far we can go. And we are still finding our way.
On the last day of his presidency, George Washington reflected on 40 years of public service and the hope that generations to come would take up the nation’s laboring oar:
I trust...that the good sense of our countrymen will guard the public [interest]…and that, altho[ugh] we may be a little wrong now and then, we shall return to the right path with more [vigor].
This lasting trust rests on a simple belief: neither the Founders nor the government alone could fulfill the Declaration’s bold claim of equality. It would take the people, generation after generation. Person after person.
On this Fourth of July, this trust lives on - in ourselves and through each other - as we together briefly stand on this inherited stage.
[A]n abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.
-Abraham Lincoln, 1859
Kevin Tibolt is a resident of Portland, Oregon.

A youth sits at a table with a child
New Haven, CT, has a long history of addressing the overall needs and assets of young people to help kids succeed. A five-time All-America City, the city boasts strong out-of-school programs and a history of focusing on the wellbeing of young people from low-income populations that stretches back over 60 years.
Leadership, Education, and Athletics in Partnership (LEAP) is a community-based nonprofit founded more than 30 years ago to “address the historic disinvestment in young people of color in our city.” The program includes two community centers that offer recreation, tutoring, and leadership development programs to kids, teens, and young adults.
One of the youths profiled in LEAP’s annual report, a 13-year-old girl named Korrie, had been in the LEAP program since she was seven years old. As a young “LEAPer,” she was active in basketball and “Expos” presentations, and, says the group’s annual report, “hopes to be an OB-GYN nurse, and she believes LEAP is helping her get there. ‘My communication skills are better now,’ she said, ‘and I've learned how to research and learn independently. That will definitely be important for my future career.’"
Another organization supporting New Haven’s youths is Bridges of Hope, which offers tutoring and mentoring by volunteers from New Haven-area churches of various denominations. Kathy Jennings, Director of Mentoring for the organization, told the All-America Cities jury in 2022 about their partnership with the Elm City Housing Development, in which they provide services to kids from the development’s homes. “Some who struggled with basic skills in 1st and 2nd grade made the honor roll in successive years,” she said.
Although it’s home to Yale University, New Haven has a surprisingly high poverty rate. This fact, along with high crime rates and population loss, motivated residents to begin organizing in the 1990s, including beautification and community development initiatives and block watch groups. As part of its decentralization of city services, the city divided neighborhoods into 12 Community Management Teams (CMT’s), resident-based groups that hold monthly meetings in which city officials participate to share information and hear about neighborhood concerns.
With much of the city’s focus on the wellbeing of young people, a coalition of youth-serving agencies, the Greater New Haven Youth Network, was formed in 2020 to better coordinate out-of-school programs. The network, which includes dozens of nonprofit organizations, says it “brings an all-hands-on-deck approach to support, their staff, and the children, youth, and families they serve.”
New Haven’s focus on the overall needs of young people stems partly from activities nearly 60 years ago, when the city was the epicenter of a new approach to schooling that treated children's needs and assets holistically. The system, called the School Development Program (SDP), was created by Yale researcher Dr. James Comer in 1968. Comer saw that local schools were not succeeding and blamed a “business/manufacturing model” aimed at moving kids through, rather than a collaborative model that harnessed parents, professionals, and the community to work together to focus on the needs and behavior of students in a holistic manner. Under this system, each school has a multi-sector governance committee that oversees policies and practices to improve performance and child development.
The SDP program was initially piloted in two New Haven elementary schools, which later showed measurable gains in educational performance. A recipient of the Heinz award in 1996, the program was cited by independent studies, one of which tracked 24 Comer students against 24 peers in another New Haven school and found the Comer group more than a year ahead in reading and math after three years. Within a few years, Comer’s SDP approach spread to hundreds of schools across 20 states, where it demonstrated measurable improvements in both academic achievement and behavior.
While SDP itself is seldom mentioned today, the core concepts continue, if not in schools, then in nonprofits providing related services, including New Haven’s youth agencies. Concepts like treating kids’ overall needs and involving parents in creating a set of values that include respect and high expectations, when supported with sufficient resources, generally lead to both academic gains and benefits for the whole community, and this remains a goal in New Haven, CT.
New Haven, Connecticut, was named a National Civic League All-America City in 2022. The All-America City Award recognizes communities that leverage civic engagement, collaboration, inclusiveness, and innovation to successfully address local issues.
Doug Linkhart is the President of the National Civic League.