Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

First instincts, second thoughts

Abortion rights and anti-abortion protestors

Protesters with abortion-rights and ant-abortion groups stand in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The court's leaked draft opinion gave election professionals another opportunity to enrich themselves, writes Molineaux.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

The shadowy politics industry is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Many Americans don’t know this industry exists. Before the 1990s, there were elections managers who helped candidates get elected. Often, these people might work for either political party. But during the Clinton administration something changed. A harder, more partisan approach became vogue. Then came the Citizens United decision, unleashing Super PACs and a new nirvana for political manipulators.


Technology advances were part of the equation, too. As our ability to target people with custom messages evolved, the new politics industry advanced to take advantage of the new technology. And then came social media to provide additional tools and niche marketing. Candidates are packaged in a formulaic manner to win elections. “Common good” ideals seem quaint by comparison.

This evolution was brought on by the politics industry of electioneers, party loyalists, marketers and conflict entrepreneurs, who together contribute to the toxic polarization we see in society. Individually, they are part of a Manhattan-like project, compartmentalized from one another, working their part of an election to subvert the common good in favor of winning elections. It’s time we have second thoughts about the value of winning “at any cost.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The politics industry has brought us:

  • All-or-nothing thinking.
  • A disregard for the process of democracy.
  • Paranoia that “they” are out to get us.
  • Viewing other Americans as the enemy and/or evil.
  • Nothing can happen unless we win.
  • News bubbles that disallow for multiple viewpoints.
  • A flawed census.
  • An on going insurrection movement.

Collectively, our social norms have been eroded, exploded and imploded to the point where appeals to our basest survival instincts are used to create conflict among Americans. This is how nations fall. Appeals to our first instinct – that survival instinct – which resides in every human brain, easily manipulate and fool us into thinking our actions are righteous. They are not.

It is only on second thought, when we look around and see that our survival, in reality, is not at risk. Once we assure our survival, then we can engage with critical thinking. We can question “the answer” presented in front of us by the politics industry that “those people or ideas are evil.” We should stop and ask ourselves if there is another explanation and explore multiple perspectives.

In the wake of the leaked memo about the potential – and likely – Supreme Court decision overturning of Roe v. Wade, I received more than 50 appeals for money. Likely you did too. The politics industry will not let a controversy play out in the media when its practitioners could enrich themselves with campaign cash to lambast their opponents.

I am angry about this subversion of our democratic process.

Women’s health, like everyone’s health, is an issue I care deeply about. Yet I resist the knee-jerk reaction to be outraged or donate money to support my perspective. My outrage and money will not be used to support the politics industry that has taught us to follow our first (base) instinct instead of our second (rational) thoughts.

Like so many matters, this is a wedge issue that the politics industry is using to its advantage and our downfall. Maybe you recognize some of the other issues used in every election cycle?

  • Gun rights and gun control.
  • Immigration.
  • Gender and sexuality.
  • Vaccines.
  • Free speech.

I posit that most Americans don’t realize the extent to which our thinking has been influenced by this shadow industry. Each of us believes our thinking to be infallible, because we live in our information bubbles without challenges.

This is our biggest danger.

It’s time we have second thoughts about any demonization of others. We need spaces and relationships to test what we believe using our critical thinking skills. When we challenge each other, we become stronger. We reweave our social fabric to co-create new social norms. The politics industry doesn’t want us talking to each other. It makes their job of winning elections harder. I say, let it be hard to subvert democracy.

Are we brave enough to follow our second thoughts?

Read More

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
red and white x sign

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

On Friday, March 21, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) related to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging the purchase of Tesla stock on March 19th.

CLC is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the challenges facing American democracy. Its mission is to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process, particularly Americans who have faced political barriers because of race, ethnicity, or economic status.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

The U.S. White House.

Getty Images, Caroline Purser

Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

Presidential Immunity: History and Background

Presidential immunity is the long-standing idea that the president of the United States has exemption from liability or legal proceedings for acts related to the duties of presidential office. Contrary to popular belief, presidential immunity is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; only sitting members of Congress are explicitly granted judicial immunity through the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Rather, the concept of presidential immunity has arisen through the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against prosecuting presidents in office and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, which has developed through a number of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1867.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Trump 2.0: Navigating the New Political Landscape

With Trump’s return to the White House, we once again bear daily witness to a spectacle that could be described as entertaining, were it only a TV series. But Trump’s unprecedented assault on our democratic norms and institutions is not only very real but represents the gravest peril our democratic republic has confronted in the last 80 years.

Trump’s gradual consolidation of power and authoritarian proclivities, reminiscent of an earlier era, are very frightening on their own account. But it is his uncanny ability to control the narrative that empowers him to shred our nation’s fabric while proceeding with impunity. His actions not only threaten the very republic that he now leads but overturn the entire post-WWII world order, which is now in chaos. Trump has ostensibly cast aside the governing principle with the U.N. Charter of Sovereignty. By suggesting on multiple occasions that the U.S. will “get Greenland one way or another,” and that Canada might become our 51st state, our neighbor to the north is now developing plans to protect itself from what it views as the enemy across the border.

Keep ReadingShow less
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

A speakerphone locked in a cage.

Getty Images, J Studios

Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.

The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”

Keep ReadingShow less