Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Partisan opponents find common ground on election reform

Four years ago, Michael Steele and Donna Brazile sat down together in Charlottesville, Va., to discuss ways a Republican and a Democrat can bridge the divide on issues of race, despite their partisan differences.

Steele, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Brazile, who led the Democratic National Committee, reconvened Tuesday to find common ground on election reform.

Early on, Steele framed the discussion around three words.

“The three words are ‘we the people,’ and the fundamental principle is that all of us get to play,” Steele said. “It may not have started out that way. But that's how it is right now. And the fact of the matter is, if we don't embrace that from the beginning ... it doesn't matter.”


Both forums were, appropriately enough, sponsored by the Common Ground Committee, which hosts solutions-oriented events to bridge the partisan divide.

Before getting to reform ideas, the pair discussed the state of democracy in the United States.

“This is a system that has been weakened, and it's being drained of trust,” Brazile said. “And if we don't take prudent steps to revitalize our democracy, I think we're in trouble.”

While the upcoming midterm elections will likely feature Republicans hammering Democrats on rising inflation and gas prices, according to Steele, if voting rights legislation goes by the wayside, other issues become less important.

“The reality of it is — those things don't matter if you can't vote,” Steele said. “The fundamental aspect for me is, how do we re-engage with each other to be stewards of our civic responsibility ... to make certain that everyone has free and unfettered access to a ballot box, and that our government doesn’t get in the way of that?”

The moderator, former CBS correspondent Jackie Adams, introduced a 2006 clip of Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, now the minority leader, supporting the body’s decision to vote 98-0 to reauthorize the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

Despite McConnell’s willingness to reinforce safeguards against racial discrimination in 2006, Adams said, the senator now says the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, passed by the House of Representatives in 2021 to reinforce provisions of the VRA that were struck down by a 2013 Supreme Court decision, is unnecessary.

Steele said the only thing that’s changed in those 16 years is the position of the Republican Party.

“The reality of it is he was right in 2006. He's dead wrong now. He knows it. Everyone knows it,” he said.

But, Steele said, there’s no active spirit within the Republican Party to enter that space and fight for change. It’s incumbent on voters to make that change through the ballot box, he argued.

After Brazile said some legislation is still actively creating obstacles to voting for Black and poor people, Adams asked if Republicans were guilty of systemic racism by preventing the loss of power by the traditional white ruling class through a lack of voting reform.

“Absolutely,” Steele said.

He pointed to the “Southern strategy” — a political realignment of voters by the Republican Party in the 1950s and 1960s, amidst the Jim Crow era and the civil rights movement, to maximize their support among white voters — alongside voter suppression tactics in the 21st century.

Brazile said it’s difficult to hold on to “American” values of access and fairness because elections are decentralized, meaning the rules are set by local and state governments. Federal reforms, such as the For the People Act, the John Lewis bill and the Freedom to Vote Act, have all been blocked by Senate filibusters.

“As long as you need 60 votes, you won't be able to fix anything,” Brazile said. “It's not going to come simply because our lawmakers are trying to make it happen.”

The discussion of state-level laws quickly turned to partisan gerrymandering, which, according to Brazile, ignores the presence of non-aligned voters for much of the process. Because independent voters don’t have a say in primaries, they spend much of the time on the sidelines, she said.

Steele said the issue boils down to elected officials deciding where their districts are and how the power is distributed.

The conversation turned to Georgia, where recently enacted laws were expected to tamp down voter turnout. Instead, large numbers of voters took part in the recent primaries.

“‘Just because people can swim doesn't neglect the fact that there's still sharks in the water,’” she said, channeling voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams. “When the rules have changed, you go out and you educate people, you provide them with information.”

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less