Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Center-right pushes back against election deniers

Evan McMullin - Renew America Movement

Evan McMullin is a former Republican who ran for president as an independent and helped create the Renew America Movement.

George Frey/Getty Images

Nearly 18 months after Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, many of his backers continue to repeat the Big Lie. In fact, some of those “election deniers” are now seeking to control elections themselves.

While much has been written about those candidates for office, less attention has been paid to the effort to combat their campaigns. And the pushback is not just from the left. There is a growing industry of center-right groups that arose from anti-Trumpism and now see themselves as defenders of democracy.

One such organization is the Renew America Movement.


Trump’s claims that he was the rightful winner in 2020 spawned a “ Stop the Steal ” movement that led to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol and inspired nearly 100 election deniers to run for state office.

The source of the attack on the Capitol and ensuring political maneuvering centers around one person, according to Joel Searby, Renew America Movement’s political director.

“Most fundamentally what caused it was that President Trump said it was true [that he won the election] and he has such a strong and faithful following that they believed what he said,” Searby explained.

You can be part of the solution. The Fulcrum is a media partner for America Talks, an innovative problem-solving event that brings together people of different political persuasions for virtual, guided conversations. You’ll learn to understand a different perspective while working together for a better America. Register now.

However, Trump’s rhetoric would not have garnered such radical support if it were not for the existing framework of turmoil brewing within the nation’s political landscape.

“Of course, there was an entire ecosystem around him making the same case,” Searby said. “What drove a lot of that was an ecosystem of conspiracy theories and a lack of trust in our institutions and in the media, so a lot of people went to their corners,” says Searby.

Anti-Trump right come out swinging

With the nation becoming increasingly polarized, some organizations are trying to work across party lines to ameliorate the problems caused by such deep division. That’s where conservative outfits like The Bulwark and RAM come in, taking a stand against the increasingly radical nature of the Republican Party, with some even choosing to walk away from their affiliation with the GOP entirely.

RAM was founded by anti-Trump Republicans in 2021, including former Trump administration officials, governors, members of Congress and business leaders. The group pledges to work with Republicans, Democrats and independents to advocate for a healthy democracy, regardless of party affiliation. One particular facet of the movement focuses on electing officials who represent bipartisan values.

“People who see the risks to our democracy right now are putting down a lot of their own personal preferences in order to build alliances to work against the most extreme elements of our parties, particularly on the Republican side,” Searby said.

Searby pointed to Georgia’s lieutenant governor, Geoff Duncan, as an example of a pro-democracy Republican who faced ostracization from his party and loss of support from many constituents in light of his contradiction of voter fraud claims.

A lifelong Republican and staunch Trump supporter, Duncan “checks every box on every conservative list you could imagine,” Searby said. “Even as someone of that high degree of integrity and credibility in the Republican party, his voice meant almost nothing to Trump supporters. … It’s just a really concerning and disturbing example of how tight the grip is on this lie.”

Additionally, some have begun to advocate for a legitimately competitive third party, particularly one driven by many former Republicans who no longer feel aligned with the representation and values expressed by the party. Searby fits this mold himself.

A former Republican, Searby has been working for independent candidates, including on RAM co-founder Evan McMullin’s 2016 presidential campaign. McMullin is now challenging GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah as an independent.

“I see a lot of energy in the third way space, of people who want to see an entirely new way in our politics, not just trying to fix the two broken parties but thinking of new ways to creatively disrupt the system,” Searby said.

But groups like RAM or the Democrats leading efforts to recruit candidates for election administration positions are not aiming at a stationary target.

Trump supporters are trying to build on their unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud by holding “ election integrity summits.” And those who believe the Big Lie are not easily persuaded by facts, according to Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark.

Moving forward

Obviously, there is still ample room for growth within these movements and the American socio-political atmosphere in general. With groups like RAM building a following or The Bulwark attracting a large audience, organizers are optimistic.

“We know we disagree on core policy issues, but what we agree on is the protection of our democracy and pushing back against lies and authoritarian rhetoric so we’re building alliances around those things,” Searby said.

The upcoming 2022 midterm elections and, inevitably, the 2024 presidential election will set the tone for the future dynamics of politics for years to come. Recent studies have found that, while more moderate voters are turned off by polarization within each party, polarization actually leads to higher participation among those who lean strongly to either side.

“Those who were profiting from political work were incentivized to divide us, [which] further incentivizes our elected leaders to play that game,” Searby said.

That’s why he says one of the most significant ways people can help change the tone is through financial contributions to bipartisan campaigns and movements.

“There’s a lot of money flowing around at the very highest level in this country, so it’s a little disheartening that those with the means [aren’t supporting this movement more],” he said. “On the flipside, those people who are giving their hard-earned $50 to $100 donations to places like Renew America, that’s where you get a lot of hope.”

While Searby fears the “broken parts” of the American political system – gerrymandering, partisan primaries, the Electoral College and some election processes – may lead to more violence if not checked, he sounded an optimistic note.

“The center of gravity right now in the political reform and ‘new way’ space is really about being united to protect our democracy against authoritarian tendencies.We can find a lot of common ground on that,” he said. “We are a beautifully pluralistic country, and we have to remember how to work together across all these various divides for these bigger picture goals.”

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less