Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

We should aim to be boring, at least when it comes to politics

Older adult male in crowd of fans yawns and checks the time on his watch
Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

American politics is anything but boring. That’s not a good thing. A stable, even dull political order is a worthy goal. Just as the Founders ditched a political order that seemed to create, rather than solve, crises, we should look for ways to reduce chaos, turmoil and incompetence.


Chaos — real or imagined — creates excuses for politicians to advance extreme proposals. Amid the Korean War, President Harry Truman attempted to seize control of most of the country’s steel mills. Congress had frequently refused to grant the executive the authority to take such drastic action. Truman persisted, and it’s hard to blame him. An ongoing conflict puts incredible pressure on the president to do all that they think is necessary to secure victory (and maintain the public’s support).

Thankfully, the Supreme Court used an expedited process to hear a legal challenge to Truman’s aggressive act and denied the seizure. Ideally, though, such a rush job would not be required. Conflicts are unavoidable. Clashes between the branches, however, can be reduced by increasing deliberation among key officials and investing in scenario planning for bad outcomes.

Turmoil — real or imagined — breeds resentment that chips away at our sense of community. Political instability marked by swings between extreme partisan positions creates a sense that the government is incapable of focusing the needs of the people. Frustration arising from that inattention would ideally unify everyone to achieve mutual goals, but greater partisanship is usually what comes from gridlock. People seeking certainty turn to the party that promises to deliver just that. It comes as no surprise that researchers analyzing recent economic downturns have found that “group polarization, rising inequality, and economic decline may be strongly connected.” Stemming any of those sources of turmoil is a step in the right direction. For instance, identifying, electing and reelecting folks willing to work across party lines can reduce excessive polarization. There’s a reason the history books celebrate politicians like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who found ways to collaborate with Democrats and Republicans.

Incompetent governance — real or imagined — gives private interests a chance to accumulate excessive power by usurping public authority. When the government appears ineffective, private actors — be they corporations, oligarchs or interest groups — are quick to step in and fill the vacuum. The result is a system where public resources are funneled toward private gain, and public officials become beholden to those who wield economic power. This erosion of public trust in government competency opens the door for corruption, cronyism and regulatory capture, all of which deepen public disillusionment.

Worse still, when government fails to deliver basic services or respond to crises, the people turn to private solutions that are often inequitable and undemocratic. To prevent incompetence from empowering private interests, we must double down on investing in building and maintaining robust public institutions that can effectively serve the common good.

All these concerns are not new. In fact, chaos, turmoil and incompetence are why early Americans ditched the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution. Victory over the British did not result in immediate tranquility. Mobs, county committees and loyalists to the crown all made governing difficult. Obstinate states, unwilling or unable to contribute to national efforts, likewise hindered a smooth start to the new country. This status quo was unacceptable to the Founders. They were quick to see that so much unrest could undermine their bold project before it even reached its teenage years. To accelerate the maturation of the nation and to increase the odds of its success, James Madison and others designed a system to quell political winds from blowing in trouble.

We can and should heed the lesson learned by our forefathers. Simple steps can go a long way toward making politics a little more boring. To start, let’s shorten the election period. The seemingly endless campaign cycle diminishes the odds of officials having the time and energy to focus on the task of actually governing. Another easy step would be to remove cameras from the Senate and House floor — freed from the pressure to try to make speeches go viral, legislators might engage in more substantive conversations. These are just a couple ideas — many more should be explored. A more boring America is possible and desirable.



Read More

People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

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
Bomb First, Debate Later: The Hidden Cost of How America Makes War Now

A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city, on March 02, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

Getty Images, Contributor

Bomb First, Debate Later: The Hidden Cost of How America Makes War Now

For those old enough to remember the first Gulf War, the scenes feel painfully familiar: smoke rising over Tehran. Babies carried out of a bombed-out hospital in incubators. Missiles striking cities across the Middle East. Oil markets in turmoil as Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz. The war of choice that began with Israeli and American strikes on Iran is widening by the hour, pulling in multiple countries, including NATO allies, and producing casualties that mount by the day.

Much of the early discussion has focused on obvious questions. How far will the conflict spread? How many people will die? What will it cost the United States in money, lives, and global stability?

Keep ReadingShow less