McElravy is an associate professor of leadership at the University of Nebraska and a member of Scholars Strategy Network.
Gov. Jim Pillen’s recent decision to accept $18 million in federal funds for the state’s summer food program demonstrates the type of leadership rural Nebraskans are demanding from our state’s political leaders. As the Nebraska legislative session unfolds, our state leaders should follow in his steps and continue to compromise and find common ground.
In the most recent Nebraska Rural Poll, 86 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that “compromise and common ground should be a goal for state political leaders.” However, given the polarized political environment across Nebraska and the country, there is political risk in changing course after taking a stance, referred to as flip-flopping, because politicians may be seen as incompetent. The courage to change course after initially refusing to apply for the summer food funding should be called out and applauded because this is the type of leadership that rural Nebraskans want to see from leaders.
Specifically, the governor’s actions seem to represent “ Both/And ” leadership, which requires that people recognize the complexity of issues and the tensions associated with different points of view. Those engaging in Both/And leadership will work to bridge the gaps in perspectives to find solutions that accommodate multiple stakeholders.
In this case, the governor was able to balance his stance of not supporting welfare while also meeting the needs of kids across the state, earning bipartisan praise for his efforts. Thanks to his decision, an estimated 150,000 kids will consistently have food on the table this summer.
Importantly, this type of leadership is not an individual endeavor and underscores the need to shift focus away from leaders and toward the broader idea of leadership. When we limit our focus to individual leaders, we ignore the reality that leadership is a process, involving leaders, followers and situational context.
A letter sent to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services by a bipartisan group of legislators in December, urging the executive branch to apply for this type of funding, illustrates the role of “followers,” or those not directly involved in the executive decision. By openly articulating their stance and providing clarity on the potential impact of the decision, they provided critical information to facilitate a more nuanced decision-making process. These legislators demonstrated courage to work across political boundaries, and these efforts, too, should be applauded as part of the leadership process.
Unfortunately, it seems all too often we retreat to political strongholds. Other data in the Nebraska Rural Poll demonstrated how polarized civil discourse feels today.
When asked, “Do you think Americans are more divided over politics than they were 10 years ago, less divided or are they about the same?” 94 percent of respondents indicated they thought we are much more or more divided today. That level of agreement on any topic is surprising.
A potential bright spot did emerge from the poll. Specifically, rural Nebraskans have significantly more faith that Nebraska’s political leaders will overcome differences to get things done at least moderately well (40 percent of respondents) than national political leaders (9 percent of respondents).
In 2021, both metropolitan and rural Nebraskans expressed moderate levels of confidence in the governor and the state Legislature in the Rural and Metro polls. It seems encouraging when collaboration and common ground can be established across these branches of government, and it may help improve confidence in these institutions.
The emerging hope is that more effective and efficient decisions lie ahead. Building trust takes time and effort, and perhaps the governor’s recent decision can serve as a foundation for trusting relationships that can facilitate more effective collaborations.
Nebraska is a big, diverse state with a variety of priorities. The’s state political leaders are charged with helping facilitate a prosperous future for all Nebraskans. To that end, our political leadership should continue to engage in compromise and common ground. It’s what constituents want, and our state will be best served by these efforts.
This article was first published in the Nebraska Examiner on March 6.


















photo courtesy of Michael Varga.
An Independent Voter's Perspective on Current Political Divides
In the column, "Is Donald Trump Right?", Fulcrum Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, wrote:
For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.
Is Donald Trump right?
Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?
Balta invited readers to share their thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
David Levine from Portland, Oregon, shared these thoughts...
I am an independent voter who voted for Kamala Harris in the last election.
I pay very close attention to the events going on, and I try and avoid taking other people's opinions as fact, so the following writing should be looked at with that in mind:
Is Trump right? On some things, absolutely.
As to DEI, there is a strong feeling that you cannot fight racism with more racism or sexism with more sexism. Standards have to be the same across the board, and the idea that only white people can be racist is one that I think a lot of us find delusional on its face. The question is not whether we want equality in the workplace, but whether these systems are the mechanism to achieve it, despite their claims to virtue, and many of us feel they are not.
I think if the Democrats want to take back immigration as an issue then every single illegal alien no matter how they are discovered needs to be processed and sanctuary cities need to end, every single illegal alien needs to be found at that point Democrats could argue for an amnesty for those who have shown they have been Good actors for a period of time but the dynamic of simply ignoring those who break the law by coming here illegally is I think a losing issue for the Democrats, they need to bend the knee and make a deal.
I think you have to quit calling the man Hitler or a fascist because an actual fascist would simply shoot the protesters, the journalists, and anyone else who challenges him. And while he definitely has authoritarian tendencies, the Democrats are overplaying their hand using those words, and it makes them look foolish.
Most of us understand that the tariffs are a game of economic chicken, and whether it is successful or not depends on who blinks before the midterms. Still, the Democrats' continuous attacks on the man make them look disloyal to the country, not to Trump.
Referring to any group of people as marginalized is to many of us the same as referring to them as lesser, and it seems racist and insulting.
We invite you to read the opinions of other Fulrum Readers:
Trump's Policies: A Threat to Farmers and American Values
The Trump Era: A Bitter Pill for American Renewal
Federal Hill's Warning: A Baltimorean's Reflection on Leadership
Also, check out "Is Donald Trump Right?" and consider accepting Hugo's invitation to share your thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.
We offer this platform for discussion and debate.