Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Video: The case for rethinking Madisonian government

Video: The case for rethinking Madisonian government

Jeanne Sheehan Zaino, Ph.D. is professor of Political Science. Follow her on Twitter @JeanneZaino or visit https://jeannesheehanzaino.net/ to learn more.

We hear a lot these days about the American government being in crisis. And it is, although not necessarily for the reasons the media is talking about. The crisis predates the events of Jan. 6, 2021, the 2020 presidential election and the issues that prompted the Biden administration to host the “Summit for Democracy” late last year.


The crisis goes back to the Founding and is rooted in something much more fundamental — the structure of the American state. The Madisonian system of government was built for “inaction and deadlock,” and it was designed that way for an important reason — to protect liberty.

Since the system has changed structurally very little since the late 18th century, it is still working largely the way it was designed. This reality has led to the crisis in the American state, an almost consistent inability on the part of the government to address the needs of its people and the crises of the day (i.e., immigration, gun violence, infrastructure, the high cost of pharmaceuticals, etc.). In those cases when it does finally act, it does so only after years of delay, obfuscation, stalemate, discussion and cries for help. Case in point:, health care reform, which was achieved after almost a century of calls and, even then, to the satisfaction of almost no one involved. We are often told this is the result of incompetent leadership, polarization, institutional disarray and the like. While all these things may be true, they miss the root cause of the problem — it’s the system.

President Biden has repeatedly said that if the United States is going to meet the key challenge of the 21st century, the battle between autocracy and democracy, we need to “prove that democracy can deliver.” That is not possible unless we follow the advice of people like Saul Alinsky, Irving Zola and the late great Rev. Desmond Tutu and “go upstream” to examine the root of the problems we are confronting: how the Framers designed the system, why they did it that way and what the ramifications are for us today. Only after we understand this can we have a much-needed and public conversation about whether the system should be modified and, if so, how.

This short video series by Jeanne Sheehan Zaino is designed to help move us in that direction.

Additional videos in the series will be published in The Fulcrum in the coming days.

Watch now


Read More

Fulcrum Roundtable:  ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent
soldiers in truck

Fulcrum Roundtable:  ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent

Congress and the Trump administration are locked in an escalating fight over presidential war powers as President Donald Trump continues military action against Iran without congressional authorization, prompting renewed debate over the limits of executive authority.

Julie Roland, a ten-year Navy veteran and frequent contributor to The Fulcrum, joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable, where she expressed deep concerns regarding the Trump administration’s impact on military nonpartisanship and the rights of service members.

A former helicopter pilot and lieutenant commander, Roland has used her weekly column to highlight what she describes as a systemic attempt to stifle dissent within the armed forces.

Keep ReadingShow less
Florida Democrat resigns, moments before the Ethics Committee was supposed to weigh her expulsion

House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, R-Miss., says the committee is committed to accountability for members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

(Photo by Samantha Freeman, MNS)

Florida Democrat resigns, moments before the Ethics Committee was supposed to weigh her expulsion

WASHINGTON – Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from the House of Representatives on Tuesday, moments before the full Ethics Committee convened to weigh expulsion for allegedly stealing millions of dollars and funneling some into her congressional campaign.

Cherfilus-McCormick was not present at the hearing. “After careful reflection and prayer, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of my constituents and the institution that I step aside at this time,” her statement read.

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting in the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill, holding tulips and signs that read, "We can't afford another war" and "end the war on iran.'

Veterans, military family members, and supporters occupy the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill calling upon the Trump administration to end the war on Iran on April 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Leigh Vogel

Trump’s Iran “Victory” Echoes Iraq’s "Mission Accomplished"

It didn’t exactly end well the last time a president declared victory this quickly. On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a flight suit, strutted across the deck for the cameras, then changed into a suit and tie, stood in front of a banner that read “Mission Accomplished,” and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. It was 43 days after the invasion began. Over the next eight years, as the conflict devolved into a protracted insurgency and sectarian war, more than 4,300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.

On April 7, Trump—presumably not wearing a flight suit—declared in a telephone interview with AFP that the United States had achieved victory in Iran. “Total and complete victory. 100 percent. No question about it.” This was the day after the President threatened to destroy a “whole civilization,” hours after a two-week ceasefire was announced. It took six days for the whole thing to fall apart. By April 15, he was back on Fox Business: “We've beaten them militarily, totally. I think it’s close to over.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A Lesson on “Matters of Morality” for the Vice President

American Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost presides over his first Holy Mass as Pope Leo XIV with cardinals in the Sistine Chapel at the conclusion of the Conclave on May 09, 2025 in Vatican City, Vatican.

(Photo by Simone Risoluti - Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images)

A Lesson on “Matters of Morality” for the Vice President

The Vice President has stepped into the fray between the President and Pope Leo. For those of you who have not been following this, Pope Leo has been critical of various things that Trump has said regarding his war with Iran, including his statement that he was ready to wipe out the civilization. In response, Trump called Pope Leo too liberal and easy on crime. He also said that the Pope was only elected because he was an American, in response to Trump having been elected President. In response, the Pope said that he had no fear of the Trump administration and that his job was to preach the gospel. He said in response to Secretary of War Hegseth's invoking the name of Jesus for support in battle, that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

Into this exchange steps the Vice President, who says he thinks the Pope should stick to "matters of morality" and let the President of the United States dictate American public policy. The Vice President obviously doesn't understand the meaning of morality and its scope.

Keep ReadingShow less