Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What if election campaigns inspired us to dream bigger?

What if election campaigns inspired us to dream bigger?
Getty Images

Suzette Brooks Masters is a strategist, thought leader and philanthropic advisor. She recently published Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy.

We suffer from a lack of collective imagination about what America’s possible futures could be. There are many reasons for this, including rampant short-termism and crisis thinking, which make it hard to look beyond the current moment and think expansively. But our deep distrust of one another and the reduced legitimacy of many of our key societal institutions – such as government and elections – make imagining shared futures for all of us, not just some of us, even more elusive.


Elections heighten our differences, not what we share.

Most Americans only pay attention to policy issues and what they could mean for them, now and in the future, during election seasons. The problem is that elections don’t bring out the best in us.

During election seasons, representatives of two opposing teams, or members of the same team, are battling it out, emphasizing their points of difference rather than agreement. Candidates, political parties and PACs bombard the public with attack ads and the media covers campaigns like it does sports, with conflict-driven stories designed to attract eyeballs and amplify drama.

In this environment, it’s not surprising that a pernicious type of polarization is on the rise in the U.S. that makes people feel an affinity for members of their “in group” and hatred for a perceived “other” or “out group.” This can fuel fears that any victory by the opposing group or political party poses an existential threat.

The frequency of American elections and the unprecedented resources spent on them – in the tens of billions – further magnify these societally adverse impacts.

Regrettably, elections don’t offer American voters a chance to zoom out and understand what the amalgam of short term policy platforms means for themselves and for future generations of Americans.

Americans don’t have enough opportunities to build and imagine shared futures together.

As more Americans retreat to tribal bubbles and sort themselves into increasingly ideologically homogeneous communities or neighborhoods, what can counter the pervasive “othering” that peaks during election seasons? What experiences allow people to see the subtle grays rather than only black or white—to solve common problems together, and to realize that they agree on the most basic things they want for their families and communities now, and especially in the future?

Recent research I conducted on how diverse people imagine hopeful futures showed surprising alignment and convergence around a few fundamental aspirations: opportunity to thrive regardless of who you are and the circumstances you’re born into, safety, fairness, and a sustainable and livable planet. Admittedly, agreeing on broad end goals does not mean agreement on priorities, sequencing, tradeoffs or process. But sharing long term-goals is an important precondition for building preferred futures and one the public rarely has a chance to develop with fellow Americans.

How to normalize longer-term thinking in civics, politics and governance.

How different would campaigns feel if voters had a chance to hear each candidate paint a picture of what life could be like a generation from now if their policies or platforms came to fruition?

Wouldn’t it be instructive for politicians to describe what kind of work would be available, how people would get around, what the air quality would be like, what children would be learning in school, what the social safety net would protect, what the state of wealth inequality would be and how people would interact with technology in 2050?

The added benefit of socializing this type of aspirational speculative fiction as a part of what’s expected of political candidates is that it would force them to stretch their own imagination muscles. What if they had to actually think through the implications of their policy choices and tradeoffs, and to imagine life for current and future generations? To render these narratives even more viscerally and tangibly, campaigns could also use AI, VR and worldbuilding techniques to create interactive or immersive experiences embodying those narratives.

Normalizing practices of visioning about where our society could and should be heading and how life could and should be lived is crucially important today. We are living through a time of epochal upheaval and transformation in which we can see our collective limits clearly and need to imagine how to transcend them. How can we manage change more transparently and productively to give our society the best possible chance to usher in better futures, or futures at all?

Short of hosting speculative fiction policy fora for candidates like the ones described above and making them de rigueur, there is so much more our news media and civic institutions can do to ask this of our current and aspiring leaders. In fact, they could ask questions today in ways that elicit thoughtful responses about what the future could look like for current voters and generations to come. These types of questions can populate media interviews, debates, town halls, and a variety of topical symposia, for starters. Furthermore, outside of campaigning, new norms can be instituted to demand the same visioning and stretch thinking by the government in dialogue with members of the public.

The American public and candidates for public office need to dream bigger about what America could become in the future. Let’s start with asking the right questions.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less