Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Thursday announced an alliance with 18 other states to push back against President Biden’s support for environmental, social and corporate governance investing, known as ESG.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.
Photo by Alejandro Barba on Unsplash
Celebrating Congressional Excellence: Democracy Awards 2025
Sep 16, 2025
In a moment of bipartisan celebration, the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) will honor the winners of its 2025 Democracy Awards, spotlighting congressional offices that exemplify outstanding public service, operational excellence, and innovation in governance.
The ceremony, scheduled for this Thursday, September 18, 2025, in Washington, D.C., will recognize both Republican and Democratic offices across multiple categories, reinforcing the idea that excellence in Congress transcends party lines.
“These offices demonstrate that excellence in public service is not only possible, it is already happening,” said CMF CEO Jen Daulby. “These winners remind us of what Congress can be at its best”.
Among the categories and winners are:
Best in Bipartisan Engagement & Collaboration
- Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA-23)
- Rep. Don Davis (D-NC-01)
These offices demonstrated that meaningful progress is possible through cross-party cooperation.
Best in Innovation & Modernization
- Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-OK-05)
- Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Honored for implementing groundbreaking strategies that improved efficiency and responsiveness.
The full list of the 2025 Democracy Awards winners can be found on the CMF website.
The Democracy Awards are more than accolades—they’re a blueprint for what effective, citizen-centered governance can look like. Offices self-nominate and undergo a rigorous evaluation process, culminating in selection by an independent committee.
The Bridge Alliance Education Fund, which funds the Fulcrum, is a co-founder of CMF.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Gen Z and the Dangerous Allure of Political Violence
Gen Z and the Dangerous Allure of Political Violence
Political Assassinations Are Part of the “Constitutional Rot” That Afflicts America
Sep 15, 2025
Americans are learning that democracy is a fragile thing. If it is taken for granted, it can wither almost imperceptibly.
Signs of that withering are everywhere. I won’t rehearse them here.
As Yale Law professor Jack Balkin explains, over the last several decades, the United States has witnessed a process of “constitutional rot.” Constitutional rot, he says, “is a process of decay in the features of our system of government that maintain it as a healthy democratic republic.”
It, Balkin argues, “is often a long and slow process of change and debilitation, which may be the work of many hands over many years…. Rot develops slowly and gradually and may be imperceptible in its earliest stages; sometimes features of constitutional rot are obvious, but sometimes they operate quietly in the background.”
Balkin notes that, “As constitutional rot occurs, our system becomes simultaneously less democratic and less republican. The political system becomes less democratic because the power of the state becomes less responsive to popular opinion and popular will.”
He continues, “The political system becomes less republican because representatives are no longer devoted to promoting the public good; instead, they seek to maintain themselves in power and please a relatively small set of powerful individuals and groups. When this happens, the republican system of representation fails—even if the system remains formally representative in the sense that we still have elections—and the result is oligarchy.”
Here I’d like to focus on another aspect of constitutional rot that Balkin neglects: the use of violence to settle political differences or to express political grievances. Democratic constitutions are undermined every time people use force in those ways.
As the murder of Charlie Kirk reminds us, the resort to political violence and political assassination is becoming a prominent feature of American political life. The attack on Kirk was reprehensible and should be decried by everyone who is committed to democracy in this country.
In my view, political violence is not simply a matter of the motives of those who use it. Violence becomes political when it is directed at targets who exemplify or stand for a political viewpoint and whose death has political meaning.
By that measure, whatever the reason that Tyler Robinson, who has been arrested for assassinating Kirk, might have had for doing it, the killing qualifies as political violence. That label also would be appropriate to describe the assassinations of two Democratic state legislators in Minnesota, the attempts on the life of President Trump and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and even Luigi Mangionne’s December 2024 killing of insurance company C.E.O. Brian Thompson in New York.
In a well-functioning democracy, political differences are settled by ballots, not bullets. “Democracy,” as former Congressman Richard Gephardt once said, “is a substitute for war to resolve differences.”
The threat of political violence can also “stifle critical forms of public engagement…and chill free expression.” The journalist Laura Bischoff recently observed that “Americans are shrinking from civic duties, such as serving as poll workers, because they fear potential threats and violence. Members of Congress, state legislators, and other officeholders risk their personal safety if they express an unpopular viewpoint.”
Today, large majorities of Americans understand that and see politically-motivated violence in the country as “a major problem.” This should not be a surprise.
When people are told repeatedly that elections are rigged, and as they lose confidence in the electoral process, political violence increases. In June 2024, only 47% of Americans said they felt “completely or fairly confident that American elections are free, fair, and secure.” 36% said that they felt “slightly or not at all confident.”
When opponents are treated as enemies and political contests are presented as life and death struggles, the climate is ripe for resort to political violence. That is why the fact that during the 2024 campaign, “Both Democratic and Republican candidates were far more likely to mention the other party, its policies, and its candidates rather than external threats, including foreign adversaries, as the main threats to democracy,” is so troubling.
The Carnegie Endowment’s Rachel Kleinfeld explains that “as partisan leaders and media personalities demonize the other party, they can create feelings of rage among followers who fear the consequences of the other party’s perceived actions. Dehumanizing and denigrating rhetoric that normalizes violence or threats against some groups turns that sense of fear and anger into a target by making certain groups appear to be both threatening and, at the same time, vulnerable.”
Kleinfeld notes that “the normalization of violence by political leaders, in particular, may provide a sense that acting violently against those groups will be permitted, may not be punished, or could be lauded and turn one into a hero.”
She argues that “the individuals committing political violence may… even be fairly apolitical. But in seeking to connect to and belong within a political community, they may find leaders who make violence seem normal or even laudable, build followers’ rage, and suggest a target for that anger in a political figure, government official, or minority scapegoat… And hints that political leaders accept such violence reduces concerns about the consequences of their violence, which might otherwise stop them from taking part in a rally or other event where their aggression could manifest.”
The closest that Balkin comes to treating political violence as a symptom of constitutional rot is when he says, “By demonizing their opposition, and attempting to crush those who stand in their way, political actors risk increasing and widening cycles of retribution from their opponents. This may lead to deadlock and a political system that is increasingly unable to govern effectively. This, in turn, can cause even greater loss of confidence in government, distrust, and polarization, hastening constitutional rot.”
Political violence is both a symptom of constitutional rot and an accelerant. It can be a way of “crushing” opponents and exacting retribution.
That is now a sad reality of American politics. As we contemplate that sad reality, there is enough blame to go around.
But, especially in light of President Trump’s statement pinning the killing of Charlie Kirk on the radical left, it is important to remember that “studies from the Global Terrorism Database, Reuters, and the National Institute of Justice, using different methodologies, all confirm that the vast number of violent plots, murders, and ideological attacks have come from the right in recent years, and have targeted not only political opponents on the left but also more moderate politicians on right.”
Whatever its source, democracy can neither survive nor thrive where violence and assassination are used to settle scores or silence people whose messages someone finds offensive. If we are to address the rot that is undermining our democracy, the American people will have to do what Spencer Cox, the Governor of Utah, advised in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination: “Look in the mirror and see if you can find a better angel in there somewhere.”
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less
"Who is an American? Who deserves to be included in ‘We the people" - Jon Meacham
AI generated illustration
Meacham: Political Violence in America Linked to Deep Questions of Identity and Inclusion
Sep 15, 2025
In a sobering segment aired on CBS Sunday Morning, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham addressed the escalating wave of political violence in the United States and its implications for the future of American democracy. Speaking with journalist Robert Costa, Meacham reflected on the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a string of violent incidents targeting political figures and institutions.
"We do not want to be in a place where, because you disagree with someone, you pick up a gun. That is not what the country can be. And if it is, then it's something different. It's not the America we want," he said.
Kirk, a prominent 31-year-old conservative organizer and vocal supporter of President Donald Trump, was shot and killed during a public debate at Utah Valley University. The suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was taken into custody the following day. Kirk’s death follows a series of politically motivated attacks, including assassination attempts on Trump, the firebombing of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s home, and the killing of Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband in Minnesota.
Donald Trump and the Rise of Political Violence
U.S. President Donald walks toward reporters while departing the White House on September 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Utah Governor Spencer Cox offered a prayer that many Americans may have whispered silently: “Please don’t let it be one of us.” The suspect, Tyler Robinson, was indeed a resident of Utah. Cox’s words—raw, reflexive, and revealing—expose the deeper fracture beneath the tragedy: the fear that political violence is no longer an aberration, but a symptom of something endemic, something homegrown.
Meacham, author of The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels, framed the moment with chilling clarity: "Political violence erupts in America when there is an existential question—who is an American? Who deserves to be included in ‘We the people,’ or ‘All men being created equal’?” he said. “When that is in tension, when we don’t have common agreement about that, then, if you look at it historically, violence erupts." These are not rhetorical flourishes. They are the fault lines of a democracy under siege.
Cox’s plea—“not one of us”—is more than a governor’s hope for civic innocence. It is a mirror held up to a state, a party, a nation. It asks whether the violence we condemn is truly foreign, or whether it has taken root in our own soil, fed by grievance, tribalism, and the erosion of democratic norms.
Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox speaks at a press conference flanked by FBI director Kash Patel following the fatal shooting of political activist Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University on September 12, 2025 in Orem, Utah. (Photo by Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images)
The historian urged political leaders and citizens alike to recommit to the foundational principles of peaceful debate and democratic engagement. “When we lose the capacity to engage in argument and dissent and debate peaceably, we are breaking faith with the American covenant,” he said. “And the American covenant is that we live in contention with each other, but we’re not at each other’s throats."
That covenant is not a relic. It is a living promise: that we can argue, protest, and disagree without resorting to bloodshed. When that promise fails, we are no longer debating policy—we are debating personhood.
The question now is not just who pulled the trigger, but what culture loaded the gun. What rhetoric normalized the threat? What silence enabled the escalation?
The segment concluded with Meacham’s call to action: “Make the case. Tell the story. What do you want the country to be? This is why history matters, I think, more than ever, because there’s not a hell of a lot going on in the present that you want to say, ‘Yeah, we want more of that.’ You want to tell the story of Omaha Beach. You want to tell the story of the Pettus Bridge. You want to tell the story of Gettysburg. Because those were moments where imperfect people actually created something better.”
Cox’s prayer and Meacham’s warning converge on a single truth: democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires restraint, recognition, and a shared belief that the other side is still part of the whole. Without that, we are not a republic—we are a battlefield.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.
Getty Images, Richard Drury
Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger
Sep 15, 2025
Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.
This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.
When conservatives express outrage, liberals dismiss them as bigots and racists. When liberals protest, conservatives roll their eyes at the alleged virtue signaling. We celebrate when our adversaries get upset because their anger means our side is winning. As researchers studying morality and political behavior, this trend is deeply concerning to us—not because people are too emotional about politics but because too many dismiss their neighbor’s emotions instead of seeing the genuine moral intuitions they reflect.
Outrage is a moral alarm—a signal that something is unfair, unjust, or harmful. Deeply tied to morality, outrage guides us to protect the vulnerable from harm. We don’t just process injustice intellectually; we feel it.
Nor is moral outrage just for show: new science shows that outrage is less about posturing than genuine perceptions of harm. People express this anger because they perceive a threat to themselves or others. Outrage is a social emotion that spreads through groups to help us collectively restrain or punish those who threaten the social order. For example, everyone in your HOA gets upset when one neighbor is too lazy to mow their lawn, and ticks spread.
Historically, a whole community might share the same fears of obvious threats like murderers, thieves, or the spread of famine or plague. But in today’s conditions of relative safety, questions of harm and moral culpability are more ambiguous. Yet we feel just as outraged about the harms we see today as our forebearers might have, even when our neighbors might not see harm in the same place that we do.
Take the debate over book bans. When conservatives push to remove books from school libraries, they see it as protecting children from harm—exposure to ideas they believe are dangerous. When liberals fight book bans, they likewise see it as protecting children from harm—censorship that restricts access to important ideas. Both sides are morally motivated and trying to stand up for the vulnerable. They just disagree about who the real victims are.
If outrage is about harm, why do we treat it like a joke? We dismiss the other party’s outrage because we see them as an outgroup—people who are outsiders, not like us, and less and less like fellow citizens. And as contemporary American politics becomes increasingly bifurcated into separate discourse communities—with wholly different media diets, civic institutions, and values—it becomes difficult to even understand why people on the other side feel the way they do. It’s tempting to conclude that their concerns don’t matter. After all, they’re the enemy. Who cares what they want?
But dismissing the other side’s outrage is a dangerous mistake. There’s always a kernel of truth in the other side’s perceptions of harm, even if we disagree over which harm takes precedence. For example, liberal outrage highlights the importance of bodily autonomy for issues like access to abortion, while conservative outrage over bodily autonomy touches issues like vaccine mandates. Both reactions are valid and point towards a moral commitment shared by all sides of the political spectrum. Neither position should be dismissed on the basis of which party sounded the alarm.
So what do we do? First, take outrage seriously. Instead of rolling your eyes at the other side’s anger, ask yourself: What harm do they see? Instead of assuming they’re just looking for attention or trying to score political points, try to understand what they think is at stake.
Second, don’t get outraged about outrage. Meta-outrage—being mad that the other side is mad—just escalates division. If someone is outraged about something you find trivial, don’t assume they’re irrational. Ask questions to see the harm they see.
Finally, focus on conversations, not battles. Studies show that when people feel heard and respected, they’re more willing to listen in return. Ask “Why does this issue matter so much to you?” That question can shift a conversation from combative to constructive.
Outrage isn’t the problem; it’s an important part of human nature that helps us protect the vulnerable and aim at a more just society. Dismissing it, however, is a problem. The more we treat the other side as outgroup members whose anger is a joke to be memed, the more we’ll close our eyes to the areas where we agree. These areas are more substantial than we think.
Polling from the Independent Center shows that voters of all stripes want to see politicians working across the aisle. To do that, we’ll have to take each other’s views, including outrage, more seriously.
Kurt Gray is author of the recent book Outraged: Why We Fight about Morality and Politics. He’s a professor in Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he directs the Deepest Beliefs Lab and the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding.
Lura Forcum is president of the Independent Center, a nonprofit organization of political independents. She is a consumer psychologist and a former professor of marketing.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More