Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Gerald Ford

Republicans, including Gerald Ford in 1976, held the White House on the occasion of each of America's milestone birthdays.

Bernard Charlon/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

America at 250, and the Fourth of July presidents

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

An odd pattern has emerged in the history of presidential politics. Every time the United States celebrates a major birthday milestone, a Republican sits in the White House.

When America celebrated its golden jubilee in 1826, Democratic-Republican John Quincy Adams was enjoying his second year as the country’s chief executive. When the nation rejoiced that it had reached its centennial 100 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Ulysses S. Grant was our president. At America’s sesquicentennial in 1926, Calvin Coolidge occupied the White House. And during the bicentennial almost 50 years ago, Gerald Ford was completing his one and only term at the helm.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tattered American flag
Nisian Hughes/Getty Images

Reversing America’s decline is no easy task

Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.

A recent Gallup poll shows that just 33 percent of Americans are satisfied with the nation’s position in the world today. This is down from 65 percent in 2000. It's not hard to understand these sentiments. America is struggling this century in measure after measure, from numerous public policy failures to increasingly dysfunctional politics to an epidemic of mental health issues among young people.

This predicament raises two essential questions: Is America’s downturn merely another temporary dip in a long arc of non-linear, yet upward, progress? Or is it the first phase of a steep national decline?

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand erasing the word "democracy"
Westend61/Getty Images

We no longer have a shared view of ‘democracy.’ Should we abandon it?

Singer is communications lead at Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement.

The term "democracy" has become a focal point in American politics, with Democrats and Republicans viewing it through different lenses. A term that once united Americans now has the potential to divide them … or lose them.

Keep ReadingShow less
‘There is a diffused climate of threats and intimidation’: A conversation with Daniel Stid
Daniel Stid

‘There is a diffused climate of threats and intimidation’: A conversation with Daniel Stid

Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the ninth in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."

The problem of polarization has been on Daniel Stid’s mind for a while.

Trained as a political scientist, Stid has spent time working in government (as a staffer for former Rep. Dick Armey), business (at Boston Consulting Group) and the nonprofit sector (at the Bridgespan Group). But Stid is perhaps best known for founding and leading the Hewlett Foundation’s U.S. democracy program. From 2013 to 2022, Stid helped give away $180 million in grants to combat polarization and shore up American democracy. Since leaving Hewlett, he has created a new organization, Lyceum Labs, and launched a blog, The Art of Association, where he writes frequently about civil society and American politics.

Keep ReadingShow less
Suzette Brooks Masters
Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation

‘Democracy is something we have to fight for’: A conversation with Suzette Brooks Masters

Berman is a distinguished fellow of practice at The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, co-editor of Vital City, and co-author of "Gradual: The Case for Incremental Change in a Radical Age." This is the seventh in a series of interviews titled "The Polarization Project."

Is polarization in the United States laying the groundwork for political violence? That is not a simple question to answer.

Affective polarization — the tendency of partisans to hate those who hold opposing political views — does seem to be growing in the United States. But as a recent report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace makes clear, “many European countries show affective polarization at about the same level as that of the United States, but their democracies are not suffering as much, suggesting that something about the US political system, media, campaigns, or social fabric is allowing Americans’ level of emotional polarization to be particularly harmful to US democracy.”

Suzette Brooks Masters is someone whose job it is to think about threats to American democracy. The leader of the Better Futures Project at the Democracy Funders Network, Masters recently spent months studying innovations in resilient democracy from around the world. The resulting report, “Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy,” argues that one way to help protect American democracy from “authoritarian disruption” is to engage in a process of “reimagining our governance model for the future.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less