Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Fantasy football coaches take in their weekly scoreboard every Tuesday and analyze what went right and wrong over the weekend. They determine where the weaknesses are on their team and plan to adjust the lineup so that next week the scoreboard is more favorable. This Tuesday, while focusing on one of the country's most divisive presidential elections in history, Americans are also electing representatives from Congress down to village board. We have studied the facts, made our choices, and set our lineups. The decisions may have been easier if we'd had a scoreboard that ranked our lawmakers in a way that gave us insight into what adjustments to make.The Builders Movement is helping with that. They have developed a new scoreboard that has the potential to reshape how we view our lawmakers: the Builders Power Rankings. Their weekly rundown ranks elected officials on their ability to bridge divides and constructively engage in bipartisan efforts. The Builders Power Rankings focus on legislative behavior, collaboration, and the tone of public discourse, aiming to identify and acknowledge those who are "builders" in an era marked by divisiveness.
The rankings split lawmakers across the political spectrum into "Builders" and "Dividers." It's not enough for the Builders to avoid inflammatory language or support occasional bipartisan initiatives. Lawmakers are judged on their consistency in prioritizing policy and people over party lines. Conversely, the Dividers list names those who frequently engage in partisanship, employing divisive rhetoric or obstructive behavior, regardless of their ideological stance.
The scores are generated using AI-powered data analysis in partnership with the Polarization Research Lab, a non-profit initiative of Dartmouth, Stanford, and UPenn. This analysis is followed by a discussion among cross-partisan analysts and commentators about specific comments and how they might affect their status as builders or dividers. This step indicates that the rankings account for necessary distinctions between passionate advocacy and outright divisiveness.
In the month leading up to the election, 250,000 Americans logged onto the ranking site, helping equip them with information on their representatives they need to make a choice that supports candidates that are willing to build toward positive governance rather than contributing to the political disarray.
Building Across the Aisle: Who’s Leading? Who's Failing to Bridge the Gap?
The Builders Power Rankings reveal some leaders that don't always grab the media spotlight but are headlining cross-partisan cooperation. Figures like Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR) and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) consistently appear in the top five builders, praised for their ability to work on significant issues that resonate beyond their districts.
Chavez-DeRemer, for instance, focuses on border policies without resorting to divisive, fear-mongering tactics — a rarity in today's political climate. Ossoff, similarly, leverages his platform to address agricultural disaster relief, a pressing need in Georgia following recent hurricanes. His proactive approach to garnering support from both sides has set a bar for constructive bipartisanship.
Interestingly, many of the Builders represent purple states or districts, where their re-election prospects depend on appealing to a broader range of voters. This geographical diversity suggests that some lawmakers feel inherent accountability to moderate their rhetoric and policy, especially in regions that do not lean heavily towards a single party. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) frequently engage with issues that resonate with constituents across political divides, finding solutions that appeal to both conservative and liberal sensibilities.
Garry Kasparov, Founder and Chairman of Renew Democracy Initiative and Builders Power Rankings panelist, pointed out: "The fact is that we're having this conversation two weeks before one of the hottest elections in US history. It definitely affects all the statements and behavior of various actors. And it's very natural that the Builders come from the districts where they have to compete for independence or even just having hoped to get some votes from the other side. While those we call Dividers, they come from the safe seats."
Figures like Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX), and Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) made appearances on the dividers list every week in October, spotlighting the tendency of some lawmakers to prioritize party allegiance and viral vitriol over constructive debate. Each week, the rankings shed light on representatives who engage in inflammatory speech or obstructive actions, which, although effective in rallying their bases, may ultimately damage the cohesion of the legislative process.
The Builders Power Rankings also consider context, such as campaign season pressures. Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX) made the Builders list the week of October 22nd despite criticism for heated exchanges with his opponent for Senate, incumbent Ted Cruz (R-TX), in a debate. He made the list in part for the signing of his bipartisan Building Chips in America Act, which he co-led with three Republicans, into law. One panelist, Joe Lonsdale, disagreed with Allred's ranking as a Builder that week, with fellow panelist Kimberly Atkins Stohr defending the ranking, distinguishing between bipartisan governance and the words used in a policy debate.
Different and Shifting Incentives
One consistent finding with the Builders Power Rankings is that the elected officials who rank as Builders are far less recognizable to the broader public than their Divider counterparts. This phenomenon speaks to a more significant issue: Divisive figures often attract more media coverage, amplifying their influence. Despite their constructive contributions, lawmakers who remain policy-focused and avoid sensationalism are less likely to make headlines. Consequently, while the Builders work on solutions to pressing issues like health care, disaster relief, and economic reform, the Dividers capture public attention with controversial statements that stoke partisan fires.
The rankings invite the public to reconsider the media's role in shaping political reputations. The Builders Power Rankings suggest that it is time for voters and journalists to place more value on the quiet but impactful work behind the spotlight, where positive change often occurs.
There is a new opportunity for elected representatives to engage with these rankings and make the discussion on social media more than viral negativity. Already, Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY) re-tweeted his #2 builders spot as a badge of honor, and Rep. Jim Moylan (R-GU) shared his #3 builders spot to his Instagram stories; we can hope that more lawmakers are willing to do what it takes to be able to show off these credentials when they are earned.
Earning a top-5 builders ranking is not something a lawmaker has to be consistently perfect to earn. A weekly analysis is a fluid measurement that allows for representatives to have good and bad weeks but always have another chance the next week to engage with colleagues more positively.
Beyond the Rankings: A Call to Action
The Builders Power Rankings provide more than just a snapshot of weekly behavior; they offer a roadmap for effective governance in a polarized environment. The data analysis is just a starting point - and the panel discussions on the details of the stories that the data represents are a chance to bring the positive stories into the spotlight. We can all take it further and use the rankings report and analysis to start our conversations on what we find unacceptable and worth elevating regarding our representation.
By highlighting figures who prioritize policy over party, the Builders Movement gives voters an alternative lens through which to view their representatives, encouraging a shift in public expectation. In this model, it is not enough for a politician to "hold the line" for their party — they must also work to build bridges, understanding that effective governance often requires difficult, sometimes unpopular, compromises.
The rankings are our scoreboard for setting our lineup for this election cycle and for the future. Let's set a lineup to serve us best and keep the conversation going.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.