In 2012, Fair Elections Center (formerly Fair Elections Legal Network) launched Campus Vote Project (CVP) to focus and expand its work around student voting issues. CVP works with universities, community colleges, faculty, students and election officials to reduce barriers to student voting. Our goal is to help campuses institutionalize reforms that empower students with the information they need to register and vote.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The B-2 "Spirit" Stealth Bomber flys over the 136th Rose Parade Presented By Honda on Jan. 1, 2025, in Pasadena, California. (Jerod Harris/Getty Images/TNS)
Jerod Harris/Getty Images/TNS)
Is Bombing Iran Deja Vu All Over Again?
Jul 07, 2025
After a short and successful war with Iraq, President George H.W. Bush claimed in 1991 that “the ghosts of Vietnam have been laid to rest beneath the sands of the Arabian desert.” Bush was referring to what was commonly called the “Vietnam syndrome.” The idea was that the Vietnam War had so scarred the American psyche that we forever lost confidence in American power.
The elder President Bush was partially right. The first Iraq war was certainly popular. And his successor, President Clinton, used American power — in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere — with the general approval of the media and the public.
But when the younger Bush, Clinton’s successor, launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Vietnam syndrome came back with a vengeance. Barely three weeks after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2002, famed New York Times correspondent R.W. Apple penned a piece headlined “A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam.”
“Like an unwelcome specter from an unhappy past,” Apple wrote, “the ominous word ‘quagmire’ has begun to haunt conversations among government officials and students of foreign policy, both here and abroad.”
“Could Afghanistan become another Vietnam?” he rhetorically asked. “Echoes of Vietnam are unavoidable,” he asserted.
Over the next 12 months, the newspaper ran nearly 300 articles with the words “Vietnam” and “Afghanistan” in them. The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times ran articles mentioning Iraq and Vietnam at an average rate of more than twice a day (I looked it up 20 years ago).
The tragic irony is that President George W. Bush did what his father couldn’t: He exorcised the specter of “another Vietnam” — but he also replaced it with the specter of “another Iraq.”
That’s what’s echoing in the reaction to President Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. We’re all familiar with cliches about generals fighting the last war, but journalists and politicians have the same habit of cramming the square peg of current events into the round hole of previous conflicts.
Trump’s decision to bomb Iran — which I broadly support, with caveats — is fair game for criticism and concern. But the Iraq syndrome cosplay misleads more than instructs. For starters, no one is proposing “boots on the ground,” never mind “occupation” or “nation-building.”
The debate over whether George W. Bush lied us into war over the issue of weapons of mass destruction is more tendentious than the conventional wisdom on the left and right would have you believe. But it’s also irrelevant. No serious observer disputes that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon for decades. The only live question is, or was: How close is Iran to having one?
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, told Congress in March — preposterously in my opinion — that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.” On Sunday, “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker asked Vice President JD Vance, “So, why launch this strike now? Has the intelligence changed, Mr. Vice President?”
It’s a good question. But it’s not a sound basis for insinuating that another Republican president is again using faulty intelligence to get us into a war — just like Iraq.
The squabbling over whether this was a “preemptive” rather than “preventative” attack misses the point. America would be justified in attacking Iran even if Gabbard was right. Why? Because Iran has been committing acts of war against America, and Israel, for decades, mostly through terrorist proxies it created, trained, funded and directed for that purpose. In 1983, Hezbollah militants blew up the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, killing 63. Later that year, it blew up the U.S. Marine barracks, also in Beirut, killing 241 Americans. In the decades since, Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies have orchestrated or attempted the murder of Americans repeatedly, including during the Iraq war. It even authorized the assassination of President Trump, according to Joe Biden’s Justice Department.
These are acts of war that would justify a response even if Iran had no interest in a nuclear weapon. But the fanatical regime — whose supporters routinely chant “Death to America!” — is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
For years, the argument for not taking out that program has rested largely on the fact that it would be too difficult. The facilities are too hardened, Iran’s proxies are too powerful.
That is the intelligence that has changed. Israel crushed Hezbollah and Hamas militants and eliminated much of Iran’s air defense system. What once seemed like a daunting assault on a Death Star turned into a layup by comparison.
None of this means that things cannot get worse or that Trump’s decision won’t end up being regrettable. But whatever that scenario looks like, it won’t look much like what happened in Iraq, except for those unwilling to see it any other way.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
a close up of a typewriter with the word conspiracy on it
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Conspiratorial Thinking Isn’t Growing–Its Consequences Are
Jul 06, 2025
The Comet Ping Pong Pizzagate shooting, the plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and a man’s livestreamed beheading of his father last year were all fueled by conspiracy theories. But while the headlines suggest that conspiratorial thinking is on the rise, this is not the case. Research points to no increase in conspiratorial thinking. Still, to a more dangerous reality: the conspiracies taking hold and being amplified by political ideologues are increasingly correlated with violence against particular groups. Fortunately, promising new research points to actions we can take to reduce conspiratorial thinking in communities across the US.
Some journalists claim that this is “a golden age of conspiracy theories,” and the public agrees. As of 2022, 59% of Americans think that people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories today than 25 years ago, and 73% of Americans think conspiracy theories are “out of control.” Most blame this perceived increase on the role of social media and the internet.
But these headlines misunderstand the crisis: belief in conspiracy theories is not on the rise. Dr. Joseph Uscinski, an expert on conspiracy theories at the University of Miami who has tracked their prevalence and effects for close to two decades, finds no increase in levels of conspiratorial thinking. Others echo his findings: a study by Uscinski and researchers from the US and UK found no increase in conspiratorial beliefs in the US (or in six European countries, for that matter) from the 1960s through 2020. For instance, only about 5% of Americans believe in Q-Anon, and positive feelings towards Q-Anon have not increased since 2018. In fact, belief decreased rather than increased in most of the conspiracy theories examined. Most conspiracy theories pop up and burn out quickly. Those that take hold for a number of years are the exception.
What is growing is the link between believing in conspiracies and justifying or committing violence against particular groups or political opponents. A 2024 study found that between 2012 and 2022, the correlation between support for political violence and conspiratorial thinking tripled in magnitude–– but researchers don’t know why. Researchers do know that “fringe” conspiracy beliefs––less popular beliefs held by more homogenous groups––tend to correlate more strongly with political violence. Specifically, Holocaust denialism and false flag theories (conspiracies that suggest that attacks or events were staged by one group and pinned on another, such as that school shootings are staged by professional actors) are particularly strongly correlated with support for political violence. Experts suggest that this growing link is perhaps due to violent people more often turning to conspiracies to justify their violent actions. Committing violence may not be such a leap for Holocaust deniers who are already willing to entertain violent thoughts outside the mainstream. Meanwhile, violent individuals might believe they are justified in acting on false flag conspiracies when those beliefs are normalized and amplified by political ideologues–– as with assertions that the FBI perpetrated the January 6th insurrection.
Conspiratorial thinking doesn't make people violent. Instead, it directs violent people towards particular targets, channeling violence against groups like Jews, Muslims, and the LGBTQ+ community. The 2017 Charlottesville protesters, decrying “Jews will not replace us,” echoed the Great Replacement Theory and Jewish world domination conspiracies. Conspiracies have also become a justification for militant Accelerationists, a group that advocates destroying economic, political, and societal systems to hasten the downfall of societies and rebuild them in their image. In the 2018 Tree of Life Shooting, the assailant killed 11 congregants because he believed the synagogue was systematically bringing in immigrants to replace White Americans. Additionally, as seen in the examples above, attitude generalization causes prejudice against one group––say, from a conspiracy theory focused on Jews––to increase prejudice towards other groups, such as Asians, Muslims, and the LGBTQ+ community.
Encouragingly, some successful interventions are emerging. Promising new research had people who believe in conspiracies discuss their beliefs with artificial intelligence, large language models. Participants knew they were interacting with AI, and yet the interaction reduced belief in their chosen conspiracy theories by 20%, with the effect lasting at least two months. This debunking even spilled over into participants’ belief in other conspiracies, leading to a general decrease in conspiratorial thinking. That makes sense: conspiratorial thinking is more of a belief system (i.e. blaming secret plots spearheaded by elites or malign groups to explain events in opposition to evidence presented by bodies of experts), rather than a belief in just one conspiracy. Interestingly, receiving information from an AI bot may work better than human interventions, because believers feel judged by people, get defensive, and dig in. With an AI bot, they can ask for and receive facts without the emotions that come from feeling attacked. This might cause participants to be less defensive, perceive less bias, and use more analytical thinking.
Additionally, researchers found that having one to four strong social connections reduces the likelihood of supporting or engaging in political violence. Work in other areas of targeted violence suggests that family intervention encourages change in these beliefs. Methods such as these could prove effective for changing the minds of those who believe in conspiracy theories and keeping those who hold violent conspiracies from taking the next step into action. Combined with this promising new AI intervention, there may be a real chance to blunt the impact of conspiracy theories on targeted groups.
Dalya Berkowitz is a Senior Research Analyst in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on targeted and political violence in the U.S. She has an MA in Security Studies from Georgetown University.Keep ReadingShow less
Why a College Degree No Longer Guarantees a Good Job
Jul 06, 2025
A college education used to be considered, along with homeownership, one of the key pillars of the American Dream. Is that still the case? Recent experiences of college graduates seeking employment raise questions about whether a university diploma remains the best pathway to pursuing happiness, as it once was.
Consider the case of recent grad Lohanny Santo, whose TikTok video went viral with over 3.6 million “likes” as she broke down in tears and vented her frustration over her inability to find even a minimum wage job. That was despite her dual degrees from Pace University and her ability to speak three languages. John York, a 24-year-old with a master’s degree in math from New York University, writes that “it feels like I am screaming into the void with each application I am filling out.”
With many recent graduates hitting the pavement searching for work, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED) says the unemployment rate for recent college grads with a bachelor’s degree hit a high of 6.1% in May, up from 4.4% in April. It’s even worse for young people with a master's degree, which FRED reports has an unemployment rate of 7.2%. The under-employment rate also rose sharply to 41.2%, according to the New York Federal Reserve. The payroll company ADP reported that hiring in May slowed to its lowest level in more than two years.
This trend of rising unemployment and underemployment among recent college graduates looks even more dire when compared to the rest of the US, where unemployment has held steady at 4.2%. According to a new report from Oxford Economics, people with a bachelor's degree or higher have a higher unemployment rate than the national average, which is “the first time this has happened in the last 45 years.” Matthew Martin, senior economist at Oxford Economics, told CBS MoneyWatch that this is especially noteworthy because “those with higher educational attainment usually have better prospects overall than their peers with less.”
Job market for graduates growing grimmer
At various times in the past, college graduates have often struggled to find their first post-graduation job. But now their prospects look even grimmer. And the experts are not so clear on the reasons why the college-to-job transmission belt is working so poorly. But they have some theories.
First, the number of available entry-level jobs may be declining. The campus recruiting company Handshake reports that the number of job postings on its platform for 2025 graduates has fallen 15 percent. Yet the number of applicants submitting their resumes for each available position has increased by 30 percent.
Second, ongoing economic uncertainty is playing a role. Going back to 2024, high prices and inflation led to shaky consumer demand and increased caution among employers, especially amid a rollercoaster presidential election, which contributed to hesitancy over hiring new workers.
Today, economic uncertainty is even greater, spurred largely by President Donald Trump’s aggressive and constantly evolving tariff agenda. That has led a number of businesses to hit ‘pause’ on investment and growth, which in turn affects their hiring decisions.
Brad Hersbein, senior economist at the Upjohn Institute, a labor-focused think tank, says, “Young people are bearing the brunt of a lot of economic uncertainty. The people that you often are most hesitant in hiring when economic conditions are uncertain are entry-level positions.”
A third factor is in play, let’s call it the “DOGE effect.” Under pressure from the Trump administration’s federal hiring freeze and budget cuts, several federal agencies have canceled intern programs for thousands of graduates, including those at USAID, the US Foreign Service, and the summer 2025 cycle of the Student Internship Program. Previous offers to participate in these internship programs have been rescinded, leaving these graduates stranded.
STEM jobs disappearing?
However, the most compelling factor that has attracted increasing attention and warrants continued monitoring into the future is the impact of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), on job prospects. For years, young people seeking a lucrative career were urged to dive into computer science and so-called STEM jobs (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math). From 2005 to 2023, the number of comp-sci majors in the US quadrupled. But now a new wrinkle is being observed in the unemployment reports.
While the overall jobless rate has hit a high of 6.1%, the level among certain science-related occupations is even worse, including physics at 7.8% and computer engineering, 7.5%. The Oxford Economics report found that many entry-level positions in the tech sector are being displaced by recent advances in AI. Entry-level jobs in the STEM sector are particularly susceptible to automation and replacement. Says the report, “The rise in the recent graduate unemployment rate is largely part of a mismatch between an oversupply of recent graduates in fields where business demand has waned.”
Not all computer science workers are exposed to this risk. Those who graduated several years ago and have accumulated more than a few years of work experience are doing well. However, those who perform lower-level, rote work are now competing with AI bots for jobs.
With such a grim job outlook for entry-level coders, enrollment in computer science programs is starting to decline. This year enrollment in comp-sci majors grew by only 0.2% nationally, and at many programs it appears to be in decline. At Stanford, widely considered one of the country’s top programs, the number of comp-sci majors has stalled, and at Princeton, the cohort of graduating comp-sci majors is projected to decline by 25%.
The lead culprit for this dramatic shift, which will play out for years to come, is technology and AI. AI may well replace the very workers who built it.
New (or old?) career paths?
It’s too early to draw hard conclusions about these tech trends, but it seems clear that a college degree or even a STEM degree is no longer the guaranteed ticket to the American Dream it once was. Might new – or perhaps old – career paths present more opportunity?
Last year, the CEOs of Home Depot and Walmart wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “Not Everyone Needs a College Degree.” Ted Decker and John Furner wrote, “Young people have been told for decades that achieving the American Dream requires a college degree…While a college degree is a worthwhile path to prosperity, it isn’t the only one.” The authors continued, “The American Dream isn’t dead, but the path to reach it might look different for job seekers today than it did for their parents. We owe it to younger generations to open our minds to the different opportunities workers have to learn new skills and achieve their dreams.”
So…plumber, electrician, carpenter, anyone? AI and robots won’t replace those occupations anytime soon, and their average salary is around $30 per hour for entry-level ($60,000 per year), and double that amount for skilled journeymen, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. As I discovered when I recently bought a home, it’s not so easy to hire skilled craftsmen because there aren’t enough of them, and they are in high demand. Might this become a more viable career path for more young job seekers?
It seems likely that today’s college graduates and younger entry-level applicants will have to be open to new career paths, as the old ones are starting to look more like dead ends.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Keep ReadingShow less
Report: One-third of the country has limited voting access since the 2020 election
krisanapong detraphiphat/Getty Images
Nonprofit VOTE Engaging With Communities Historically Excluded From Voting
Jul 06, 2025
For nearly 20 years, Nonprofit VOTE has engaged 60,000 workers at 120 nonprofit organizations nationwide to register to vote, including young people.
According to Nonprofit VOTE’s website and executive director, Brian Miller, the organization works to provide nonpartisan resources to nonprofits across the United States, helping them integrate voter engagement into their ongoing activities and services. Nonprofit VOTE's annual report states that seven out of ten voters believe nonprofits should offer voting services to constituents.
“[Nonprofits] have missions and values of community empowerment that transcend the politics of the day,” the annual report states. “This gives them an unmatched advantage at engaging voters typically overlooked by partisan groups and campaigns who have very-short term goals focused on a day in November.”
Nonprofit VOTE reaches nonprofits across the United States, engaging with communities. These organizations include direct-service nonprofits, such as food pantries and community health centers, as well as community-based organizations and grassroots groups. Miller said these nonprofits are the ones directly engaging with potential voters.
One example of an organization with which Nonprofit VOTE has engaged is The Human Service Chamber of Franklin County, Ohio. Miller said the group had only three staff members who joined their network. One of these members ran the Highland Youth Garden, which produces fresh food for a diverse neighborhood.
Miller added moments like this show how Nonprofit VOTE’s work “ripples outward” from regional partners to local sites.
“It’s a cascading, snowflake-like effect: small initiatives multiplying into widespread impact,” Miller said.
Nonprofit VOTE has several programs and initiatives to engage voters using resources from engaged nonprofits. One is their general resources and training, which they ensure are accessible by offering closed captioning, alternative image naming, and more.
Miller said their resources are designed to assist nonprofits at various stages in getting the communities they serve ready to vote. These materials include fact sheets, informative guides, and webinars, which Miller said reach over 3,000 nonprofit leaders each year.
Miller added that in recent years, these materials have transitioned to digital formats due to the “dramatic shift” in voter engagement spaces over the past few years. For example, Miller said that Nonprofit VOTE held a webinar before the 2024 general election to discuss disinformation and misinformation caused by artificial intelligence.
“Our partners consistently demonstrate that this tailored model of civic engagement goes beyond participation to foster dignity and empowerment,” Miller said.
Miller also said non-profits were 1.3 times more likely to engage with young voters aged 18 to 24. The Pew Research Center has referred to Generation Z as “digital natives” because they are the first generation with little or no memory of a time before smartphones.
Beginning in 2025, Nonprofit VOTE also added a new program called “Getting Started.” Miller said that, unlike their virtual webinars, which typically include over 100 participants, Getting Started is a monthly, smaller meeting with fewer than 30 attendees for organizations new to voter engagement, teaching them those skills.
However, in terms of the biggest challenges Nonprofit VOTE faces, Miller said there is “distrust” and “disillusionment” among communities that have been historically excluded from voting. But Miller said nonprofit organizations engaging with communities and providing voting resources help increase voter turnout for these groups.
Looking ahead to next year, Miller said Nonprofit VOTE is focusing on the 2026 midterms, where they want to build a field program with state-based organizations and expand the work of their national staff.
Miller added that the organization stays motivated by “centering community voices” and “maintaining strong relationships” with organizations.
“In the long term, we aim to close participation gaps and ensure inclusive democracy, where all voices are represented and included,” Miller said.
Maggie Rhoads is a student journalist attending George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs. At The Fulcrum, she covers how legislation and policy are impacting communities.
Maggie was a cohort member in Common Ground USA's Journalism program, where Hugo Balta served as an instructor. Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn more by clicking HERE.
editsharetrending_upKeep ReadingShow less
Load More