As many as 120 million Americans lack consistent, high-speed internet access — a problem that remote working and learning during the pandemic has made painfully clear. Media scholar Christopher Ali says it isn’t just an economic problem but a threat to democracy itself. And while the rural-urban divide is well known, Ali tells Will and Siva, poor, densely populated areas are also drastically under-served. Do Americans have the will to treat internet access as a public service rather than a consumer good?
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Democrats have work to do to reclaim the mantle of change
Dec 06, 2024
“Democrats are like the Yankees,” said one of the most memorable tweets to come across on X after Election Day. “Spent hundreds of millions of dollars to lose the big series and no one got fired or was held accountable.”
Too sad. But that’s politics. The disappointment behind that tweet was widely shared, but no one with any experience in politics truly believes that no one will be held accountable.
It’s common after a national election to see partisans on the losing side join other operatives and media experts in autopsies of the defeat, pointing fingers or coming up with an abundance of excuses.
This time it’s the Democrats sifting through the wreckage of defeat to determine if Election Day was a circumstantial setback or the unfolding of a potentially long-term disaster.
That fear was only encouraged by the realization that the party was in for a repeat of the stunning disappointment Democrats suffered in their loss to Trump in 2016.
This time, Trump actually outperformed his 2020 margins across the map, winning the popular vote as well as the electoral vote, despite his well-documented negatives, including 34 felony convictions.
History also tells us that the parties have shown impressive resilience in their ability to come back from disaster in recent decades.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But, first, comes a reckoning.
The day after the election, as the Washington Post reported, the Dems were “awash in angst-ridden second-guessing.”
Ah, yes, political junkies in the chattering classes produced ample scenarios to pinpoint where they went wrong.
What if Harris had picked, say, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her running mate? Could that have helped her margins in the “blue wall” states? If Biden had stayed in the race, could he have retained the strong coalition that carried him to victory in 2020?
But the bigger question is, how could the party have so lost touch with the voters that they underestimated the numbers of voters who still wanted to vote for Trump’s mixed message?
The question reminds me of a fundamental principle of political campaigns and voter behavior that I first heard Democratic consultant James Carville express: “Every election is a contest between ‘change’ and ‘more of the same.’ ”
“Change” was the magic word that inspired and propelled the relatively unknown Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s long-shot campaign to victory in 2008, when the war-weary and economically shaken voters looked for change after eight years under Republican George W. Bush’s presidency. A similar desire for change worked in Joe Biden’s favor against Trump in 2020.
Unfortunately for Harris, she was too closely tied to the Biden administration to credibly promote herself as a change agent. Nor did she have enough time to come up with more of a platform of her own.
Things could have worked out better for her and other Democratic candidates if they had followed the advice offered by John Judis and Ruy Teixeira.
Judis is a journalist from the left who has studied and written about American democracy for decades. Teixeira is a nonresident senior fellow at Washington’s conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and before that was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which makes him one of the few researchers I know who has worked at a liberal and a conservative think tank without losing his mind — a commendable achievement in Washington, a town too often hobbled by ideological segregation.
Their latest book, "Where Have All the Democrats Gone? The Soul of the Party in the Age of Extremes," offers a wake-up call for Democrats and others who they believe have lost sight of the people in America’s political center who both parties are trying to woo. Or should be.
Both parties are afflicted these days with new challenges, even as they try to figure out changes in the electorate that resulted from old challenges.
For example, the turnout of so many young, disenchanted and underemployed white males in this campaign year came as a surprise, particularly to Democrats, who were expecting the party’s support of abortion rights to carry them closer to victory than it finally did.
That, too, offers an important political lesson. Timing is everything, it is often said. But issues matter, too.
Where have all the Democrats gone? Maybe the party’s leaders need to go find out.
Page is an American journalist, syndicated columnist and senior member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board.
©2024 Tribune Content Agency. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Meet the change leaders: Sylvia Puente
Dec 04, 2024
Sylvia Puente is a civic and Latino community leader who, as president and CEO of the Latino Policy Forum works for equity, justice and economic prosperity in Chicago and across Illinois. Her nonprofit conducts public-policy advocacy and analysis on issues including education, housing and immigration.
During her early 15 years at the forum, Puente has grown the organization into a central voice on Latino issues and has established herself as a thought leader in the arena.
Puente was selected by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker to serve on his transition team as part of the Educational Success Committee. She has been appointed to the Restore, Reinvest, Renew Board and the State Housing Task Force. She was appointed by previous governors to the Illinois Early Learning Council, on which she still serves, and the Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board. She is also a board director of Advance Illinois, a public policy agency working to improve education in the state.
Puente is frequently cited as an expert on Latino issues and has published numerous reports and articles that articulate their vital role in society. She is a recipient of the Ohtli Award, Mexico’s highest recognition of those serving the Mexican community outside of Mexico. She received honorary doctorates from Governor State University in 2023 and Roosevelt University in 2021 for her social justice work. Puehte also received the 2023 Career Achievement Award from the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, highlighting alumni who have served as significant leaders in the public, private or nonprofit sectors. She has also been recognized by Hispanic Business Magazine as one of the “100 Most Influential Hispanics in the U.S.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Sylvia for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of her democracy reform work:
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Balta is director of solutions journalism and DEI initiatives for The Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is publisher of the Latino News Network and a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Pardon who? Hunter Biden case renews ethical debate over use and limits of peculiar presidential power
Dec 04, 2024
The decision by President Joe Biden to pardon his son, Hunter, despite previously suggesting he would not do so, has reopened debate over the use of the presidential pardon.
Hunter Biden will be spared potential jail time not simply over his convictions for gun and tax offenses, but any “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period Jan. 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.”
During his first tenure in the White House, Donald Trump issued a total of 144 pardons. Following Biden’s move to pardon his son, Trump raised the issue of those convicted over involvement in the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, raising expectations that he may use the pardon in their cases – something Trump has repeatedly promised to do.
But should the pardon power be solely up to the president’s discretion? Or should there be restrictions on who can be granted a pardon?
As a scholar of ethics and political philosophy, I find that much of the public debate around pardons needs to be framed within a more fundamental question: Should there be a presidential pardon power at all in a democracy governed by the rule of law? What, after all, is the purpose of a pardon?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
From royal roots…
Black’s Law Dictionary, the go-to book for legal terms, defines the pardon power as, “an act of grace…which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” Although the power to pardon is probably as old as politics, the roots of the presidential pardon in the U.S. can be traced back to English law.
The English Parliament legally placed an absolute pardon power in the hands of the monarch in 1535 during the reign of King Henry VIII. In the centuries that followed, however, Parliament imposed some limitations on this power, such as preventing pardons of outrageous crimes and pardons during an impeachment.
The Founding Fathers followed the English model in establishing the powers of the executive branch in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Section 2 of that article specifically grants the president the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States” and acknowledges one limitation to this power “in cases of impeachment.”
But the anti-democratic roots of the pardon power were a point of contention during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. In a 1788 debate, Virginia delegate George Mason, for example, said that the president “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself. It may happen, at some future day, that he will establish a monarchy, and destroy the republic.”
Mason’s concern clearly identifies this vestige of the absolute powers of the English monarchy as a potential threat to the new democracy. In reply, based on the assumption that the president would exercise this power cautiously, James Madison contended that the restriction on the pardon power in cases of impeachment would be a sufficient safeguard against future presidential abuse.
…to religious reasoning
The political concept of pardon is linked with the theological concept of divine mercy or the charity of an all-powerful God.
Pardon, as Supreme Court Justice Marshall noted in the 1833 United States v. Wilson ruling, is defined as “an act of grace.” Just as in the Abrahamic faiths – Islam, Judaism and Christianity – God has the power to give and to take life, kings wield the power to take life through executions and to grant life through the exercise of pardons.
Echoing the command of the Lord’s Prayer “to forgive the trespasses of others,” English philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ book “Leviathan” asserts that the sovereign ought to display grace by pardoning the offenses of those who, repenting those offenses, want pardon.
Yet, this analogy with divine mercy for all individuals collides with the legal principle of treating different cases differently. If all trespasses were forgiven, pardon would be granted to all crimes equally.
There would be no need for distinctions between the wrongly and the rightly convicted or the repentant and unrepentant criminal. All would be forgiven equally. Universal pardon thus violates the legal principle that each individual should receive their due. In the eyes of law, it is impossible to pardon everything and everyone.
The incognito of pardon
What Hobbes recognized, if imperfectly, is that the power of pardon is just as essential to political life as to our personal lives. It helps to overcome the antagonisms of the past and opens a path to peace and reconciliation with others. The act of forgiving, as political theorist Hannah Arendt puts it, allows us “to begin again” and to create a new future together.
But how can we reconcile this need for pardon with the impossibility to forgive everything?
One answer can be found in the work of French philosopher Paul Ricoeur. Ricoeur talks about the “incognito of forgiveness” – “forgiveness” literally translates to “pardon” in French. Acknowledging the difficulty of turning pardon into a universal legal rule or norm, Ricoeur suggests that pardon can exist only as an exception to legal rules and institutions.
Pardon, in Ricoeur’s words, “can find refuge only in gestures incapable of being transformed into institutions. These gestures…designate the ineluctable space of consideration due to every human being, in particular to the guilty.” In other words, it has to fly under the radar of rules and institutions.
This insight is alluded to by Justice Marshall in his Wilson ruling. Marshall states that pardon is “the private, though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended, and not communicated officially to the Court.” The pardon remains incognito, or under the radar, in the sense that it is an extra-legal act that does not pass through legal institutions.
In these last days of the Biden administration, this incognito of pardon offers an important reminder of the need for pardon as well as its limitations. The democratic transfer of power always involves an implicit act of pardon that remains incognito. It allows for a fresh start in which society can acknowledge the past transgressions of an outgoing administration, but move on with the hope to begin again.
Though critics of the president may reject individual acts of pardon, especially involving family members, society should not give up on the power of pardon itself: It brings a renewal of hope to democracy.
Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an article first published on Dec. 15, 2020.
Davidson is a professor of philosophy at West Virginia University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond the stereotype: An Alpha's witness to enduring leadership
Dec 03, 2024
As another election season draws to a close, I find myself reflecting on a familiar refrain — one that has grown all too weary with age. It is the lamentation of the allegedly apathetic African American male, a narrative that persists in depicting my brothers as disengaged and disinterested in shaping our collective future.
As a minister, a professor and a proud, 28-year member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, I am here to tell you that this stereotype is as damaging as it is inaccurate. It is a misrepresentation that not only erases the fundamental contributions of Black men but also absolves our broader society of its responsibility to dismantle the systemic barriers that hinder true equality.
I have dedicated my life to the pursuit of justice, to the empowerment of marginalized communities and to the fostering of difficult yet necessary dialogues around race and inequity. Through it all, I have consistently found my brothers, my fellow Alphas, standing shoulder to shoulder with me on the frontlines of change.
Alpha Phi Alpha, the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity established for African Americans, was founded on a bedrock of service, scholarship and social justice. From our inception on Dec. 4, 1906, at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, we have understood that the fight for true equality demands more than sporadic outrage; it requires strategic mobilization, institutional building and an unwavering commitment to the uplift of our people.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Our legacy is one of transformational leadership. Alphas have left an indelible mark on American society, includingMartin Luther King Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Duke Ellington and Langston Hughes to name a chosen few. These men, and countless others like them, didn't simply bemoan the challenges of their time; they actively organized, advocated and broke down barriers, often at significant personal cost.
Today, that legacy endures. Through our "A Voteless People is a Powerless People" campaign, Alphas has worked tirelessly to educate, register and mobilize Black voters nationwide. We recognize that true power lies not merely in protest but in the ability to shape policy, hold elected officials accountable and ensure our voices are heard in the halls of power. Beyond the political realm, our "Go to High School, Go to College" initiative has inspired generations of young Black and Brown boys to pursue academic excellence and understand education as a liberating force. Through mentorship programs, scholarships and community outreach, we are helping to cultivate a new generation of leaders — men who understand their potential and their responsibility to uplift their brothers and their communities.
Yet, despite this rich history and ongoing commitment to service, the stereotype of the apathetic Black man persists. African American men have always understood the stakes of our struggle. We've always known that freedom is not a destination but a journey that demands constant vigilance, strategic action, and an unwavering belief in our inherent worth and dignity, even in the face of systemic racism and discrimination.
Along with 10,000 men worldwide, I’m pleased to model a brand of leadership that is not merely reactive but proactive — that understands the power of collective action, the importance of institution-building and the enduring value of service to others. So, America, let's move beyond the tired stereotypes and lazy narratives. I invite you to recognize African American men's accurate and abiding contributions, not just as occasional voters but as steadfast leaders, organizers and change-makers.
In celebration of the fraternity's founding by our Seven Jewels — Henry Arthur Callis, Charles Henry Chapman, Eugene Kinckle Jones, George Biddle Kelley, Nathaniel Allison Murray, Robert Harold Ogle and Vertner Woodson Tandy — we celebrate their legacy and all who've come before us. Together, we wholeheartedly commit to inspiring a new generation to embrace the challenge and the privilege of leadership in their communities and world. Remembering the most accurate measure of a people is its ability to survive, thrive, transform and leave the world better than it found it. Such is the Alpha way:
“First of All, Servants of All, We shall transcend All.”
Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More