Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democracy is a Responsibility, Not a Guarantee

Opinion

Paper craft illustration of people silhouettes standing on speech bubbles across each other.

A Georgetown student reflects on democracy, political polarization, civic engagement, and why empathy, dialogue, and informed citizens are essential to America's future.

Eugene Mymrin / Getty Images

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

We asked Alexis Tamm, a student at Georgetown University and a Fulcrum Fellowship cohort member, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.



I grew up surrounded by symbols of democracy, as if it was something that would simply always exist in the United States.

“This is the best country in the world,” my grandfather used to tell me. As an immigrant from Latvia fleeing WWII and the Soviet regime, his family embraced the American Dream narrative and built a life for themselves here from next to nothing. And I never had reason to question his assertion. I stood among my classmates with my right hand over my heart as we recited the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at the instruction of the cackling loudspeaker of my public elementary school classrooms. My family used to count how many American flags we could spot flying from the houses we passed on our way to the local Fourth of July parade. Our democracy is so well-woven into the fabric of our country’s history and the symbolism of American life that I thought I would never need to doubt its health and stability.

Democracy as a form of government literally means power vested in its people. But it’s much more than just elections or government institutions—it’s a relationship among its citizens. And in a country of more than 342 million people of all backgrounds governed by fifty semi-independent states, there will never be a singular consensus about anything. Today, our democracy has grown fragile because it depends on its citizens’ willingness to engage with each other, and growing polarization has been eroding that foundation.

A recent Pew Research Center study found that the health of our democracy notably declined in 2025 following a pattern of weakening over the past decade, according to multiple evaluations that have long tracked the performance of democracies around the world. And this decline is perceived among the public: in a March 2026 survey, 69% of American adults reported dissatisfaction with the way our democracy is working. But the irony of this dissatisfaction is that our democracy and its future don’t lie solely in the hands of those in office. While elected officials may bear the heaviest weight of democracy, it is built on its people—a foundation that has been strengthened by centuries of collaboration, discourse, and debate.

During my time in college, I noticed many people seemed to feel that it was their responsibility to impose their beliefs on others, or actively (and often vocally) isolate themselves from those with different viewpoints. I watched as people unfriended classmates on social media when they discovered such a difference, whether it be a political party they supported or a campus organization to which they belonged. I even had a friend urge me to rethink my relationship with my grandparents—who I have always been very close to—because they held the “wrong” political views. But when did disagreement validate exclusion—and how are we supposed to uphold the same democracy if we refuse to even acknowledge each other?

This is the crux of the issue: we are too focused on exerting our own beliefs and surrounding ourselves with people and media who support our way of thinking. In a world where information has never been so accessible, it is easy to put ourselves in an echo chamber, whether we do so consciously or not. By consuming only information that enforces our own beliefs, we risk isolating ourselves from perspectives and experiences outside our own. The problem is not that many people hold strong convictions—this, in fact, is the very thing that keeps our democracy in check—but rather that they refuse to acknowledge or are quick to dismiss others with different perspectives. By doing so, we remove any possibility of bridging differences to find a common solution that benefits us all or, at the very least, understanding what makes our belief systems so distinct, even if we will never actually agree. A strong democracy requires a balance between conviction and coexistence.

Democracy isn’t self-sustaining; it is practiced daily by every citizen in the smallest of ways. Yes, we must continue to uphold our critical role in maintaining democracy as voters and voices to advocate for ourselves and our beliefs. But more importantly, we must consciously think about the role we play in strengthening our democracy. It can start with a few simple actions: diversify your information sources. Have a conversation with someone you disagree with—and listen to understand, not to respond. Don’t jump to judge others before you take the time to learn what drives their beliefs.

Disagreement is inevitable—in fact, it’s necessary in a nation so large and diverse. But unless we can agree to disagree in ways that allow us to develop empathy and understanding for people different from ourselves, we will never be able to save our democracy’s fragile foundations.


Alexis Tamm is a Fulcrum Fellow and a student at Georgetown University. An avid writer and aspiring journalist, she is passionate about solutions-focused reporting and driving change through storytelling.


Read More

50501 Movement – Thomas Paine’s Political Philosophy in the 21st Century

circa 1770: The English-born American revolutionary philosopher Thomas Paine, (1737 - 1809), who wrote and published 'The Rights of Man', (1791 - 1792), in England. In it he expressed his support for the French Revolution and called for the overthrow of the British monarchy.

(Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

50501 Movement – Thomas Paine’s Political Philosophy in the 21st Century

The 50501 Movement can be viewed as a 21st-century manifestation of the anti-authoritarian, pro-egalitarian framework that Thomas Paine championed in Common Sense. Both movements share a core belief in challenging entrenched power and mobilizing the collective voice of everyday people to defend democracy. By utilizing decentralized, nationwide grassroots mobilization to challenge executive overreach and billionaire consolidation, the 50501 movement directly echoes Paine’s anti-authoritarianism, his belief in collective civic power, and his demand that power remains in the hands of the people.

The 50501 Movement mirrors the spirit of Paine’s Common Sense through three primary parallels:

Keep ReadingShow less
  Creative Images & Video Creative Images & Video Images Creative Editorial Video Creative Editorial  Search by image or video I Voted Today paper sticker on mans finger on rustic wooden table

How class, identity, and political recognition shaped the Democratic Party's relationship with rural white working-class voters over two decades.

BackyardProduction/Getty Images

The Thousand Injuries: The Not-Qwhite Voter and the Politics of Recognition

In the fall of 2003, Howard Dean said he wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in the back windows of their pickup trucks. It was clumsy but not dishonest. He meant that his party had written off a whole category of American voter and wanted to change that. He was attacked at once, mostly by his own side, and walked it back within forty-eight hours. The lesson his party drew was not that the outreach had been badly phrased; It was that the outreach itself was impermissible, that to pursue the rural white working class voter was to be complicit with everything he was presumed to represent. Dean was the last major Democrat to try, and the consequences have accumulated in the shape of the electoral map.

Edgar Allan Poe understood something the party still does not. "The Cask of Amontillado" opens with a line that ought to hang in every campaign office: the thousand injuries of Fortunato the narrator had borne as best he could, but when Fortunato ventured upon insult, he vowed revenge. Injuries can be borne as long as the injured man believes his tormentors still regard his suffering as real. The insult is different. It reframes the injuries as deserved, telling the sufferer he is the kind of person who deserves to suffer. Poe's narrator does not recalculate his interests; he takes his revenge at great cost to himself. That is not irrational but human, and it is the most precise framework we have for what has happened to rural white working-class voters over the last twenty years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Painting by John Trumbull made in 1818 depicting the Committee of Five (Adams, Livingston, Sherman, Jefferson, and Franklin) presenting their draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Painting by John Trumbull made in 1818 depicting the Committee of Five (Adams, Livingston, Sherman, Jefferson, and Franklin) presenting their draft of the Declaration of Independence.

Gwengoat/Getty Images

Defending Democracy Through the Founders’ Principles

As we have been celebrating the 250th anniversary of our country's founding, America is faced with its biggest challenge probably ever, save the Civil War. While there is much to celebrate in the 250 years of our existence, this moment is fraught with danger—not just for our democracy but for our founding principles of equality and the people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand the critical role that our country's structure, democracy, and the rule of law play in their efforts to live their lives and pursue happiness. People think, "So what, these issues don’t impact my life."

Keep ReadingShow less