Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The dysfunction continues

Senate votes 50-50

Opinion

The dysfunction continues

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


Yesterday, our congressional dysfunction continued as the vote on the For the People Act was along purely partisan lines with a vote of 50 Democrats in favor and 50 Republicans against. The level of dysfunction is heightened by the fact that this was not a vote to pass the voting rights legislation, but simply a vote on whether to even debate the proposed legislation.

Whether one believes that the wave of state-level voting changes is warranted or not, whether one believes in the voting rights legislation in its present format or not, there is no doubt that Americans believe that voting is at the heart of our democratic process. Yet the vote as to whether to even have a debate on the subject was 100% partisan.

As I listened to the rationale on both sides before, during and after the vote, I realized that the rhetoric was devoid of any desire for an open-minded search for the truth and a workable solution on this vital issue.

As I switched channels between FOX, MSNBC, and CNN, I witnessed the dogma and observed how it can give the holder a warm and comforting feeling of security in this time of great change and anxiety in our nation. Comfort unfortunately does not allow for the possibility of advancement and a modicum of common ground.

Polls repeatedly show that a vast majority of Americans in both parties want fair and open elections. Yet this is rarely mentioned by the press or members of Congress as the dysfunction continues. Finding the balance between reasonable voter ID that 75% of Americans favor and federal standards to ensure that voting is accessible and fair cannot even be debated as both sides are entrenched in the dogmatic rhetoric of left versus right politics.

Therefore, the dysfunction continues as both sides enflame their followers. A writing by professor Dan Schnur published in Allsides.com entitled Both Parties Rely on Fear-Mongering articulates the problem.

Democrats issue dire warnings of the threat of voter suppression. Republicans sound the alarm about the menace of voter fraud. But both parties are dramatically overstating an exaggerated problem to whip their most devoted supporters into a frenzy. The result is that confidence in the foundation of our democratic process is at an all-time low, driven down by unyielding partisan attacks from both the left and the right as a cynical tool to motivate their most committed loyalists.

Last night as I reflected, I was reminded of a quote from Brené Brown, a research professor who has spent a decade studying vulnerability, courage, authenticity, and shame:

My inability to lean into the discomfort of vulnerability limited the fullness of those important experiences that are fraught with uncertainty: Love, belonging, trust, joy, and creativity to name a few.

You may ask how this in any way relates to the dogma perpetrated by our political leaders who each have their own prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by their side. Perhaps it is our fear of uncertainty, and the vulnerability that comes with uncertainty, that leads the citizens of our country to gravitate to candidates who claim to have the answer, who portray everything with a high degree of certainty in comforting black and white terms.

Our nation is trapped by political dogma and the greatest casualty is the truth that is needed for pragmatic solutions. Everything gets lost in the posturing, the fear mongering, and the close mindedness as nothing gets done. And We the People are the collateral damage of this partisan warfare.

We can and must do better as a nation. Now is the time, because so much is at stake.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less