Katherine Gehl, founder of The Institute for Political Innovation, joins the Unbiased Podcast to explain Final Five voting. Gehl also discusses why party primaries are a major cause of our political dysfunction. With ranked choice voting making gaining popularity and making its way into elections, Gehl offers a fantastic overview of how the system works and why it would solve several US election issues.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
A Path Forward for the Pro-Democracy Community
Feb 27, 2025
The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
In the weeks following President Trump’s inauguration, it is challenging to make sense of the state of our democracy. I am in some conversations where colleagues and friends who assert that Elon Musk is leading a coup. For many, “constitutional crisis” has become the term of the day. I’ve met with conservatives buoyed by a new sense of dynamism and opportunity for re-invention of a stagnant and dysfunctional government and are critical of the left for alarmism. I also know many who have already lost their jobs due to federal cuts, having spent their entire careers fighting for democracy.
The path forward is muddled for the nebulously defined but quickly growing pro-democracy community. The movement, loosely defined as individuals and organizations dedicated to improving the country’s civic and political fabric, whether through structural or cultural means, has been admittedly anti-Trump in nature. While not always national in scope, the community has made clear that the election of a man who has frequently challenged democratic norms and helped ferment an insurrection is antithetical to its values.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
By that value, the community itself faces an existential moment. Whatever the reason for Trump’s re-election (and the reasons have been and will be debated in earnest, whether it be the price of eggs, sexism, and racism, the ineptitude of the Democratic party, or anti-incumbency bias), it has become evident that existing strategies are not working. Americans are not buying the form of democracy this field has been selling.
(It is important to note that the definition of democracy itself is contested and should be adjudicated. Trump-supporting conservatives will say they are fighting for democracy. Indeed, in his recent speech at Munich, Vice President Vance’s castigation of European countries and support of far-right parties was explicitly couched in democracy language, noting, “But what no democracy, American, German, or European, will survive is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief are invalid or unworthy of even being considered. Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters.”)
Given the challenges of the moment, an urgent conversation within the pro-democracy community is needed to assess the path forward. That dialogue is necessarily difficult. Some argue that given the cost to real people at this moment, a new type of resistance is needed. Others worry that advocates overreact too early to every policy the new Administration pushes out.
Others believe that focusing on the ideal of democracy itself is not helpful, but rather, the best path forward is to articulate and highlight policies that positively affect people. Democracy cannot be abstract; it must be delivered to the people.
Some say that a focus on Trump is distracting, imploring the community to ignore national politics and highlight the local. Democracy, the argument goes, occurs in local community groups, and a national anchor is counter-productive.
Others assert that the structural barriers in place continue to prevent true representation, making the case for reforms like proportional representation, rank-choice voting, or participatory mechanisms like citizen assemblies. This community tends to focus more on future thinking, moving past the challenges of the moment.
Having been active in the pro-democracy sphere for over a decade, I don’t think the answers to this debate are clear or obvious at all. If they were, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. I also do not believe that the solutions are mutually exclusive. However, I do think that sometimes the field, perhaps because of financial interests (it’s hard to raise money!) or perhaps because of organizational ego, ignores the potential reinforcing nature of a functioning ecosystem. In its worst form, this leads to organizations continuing to promote silver-bullet solutions to the crisis in our democracy.
What is clear, however, is that the field cannot rely on old strategies. The sector must debate the path forward.
To that end, I’m excited to be launching a new series with The Fulcrum focused on charting a potential path forward for the pro-democracy community. Over the next few weeks, I’ll interview diverse leaders in the sector and ask them for their candid thoughts on what is working, what is not working, and what needs to change. You’ll hear from pastors, former elected officials, Republicans, Democrats and Independents, national experts, and local leaders. Their proposed solutions are similarly diverse.
This project's purpose is not to develop a playbook for the sector. Instead, it is to elevate the conversations that need to happen. Gal Beckerman’s recent book “The Quiet Before” analyzed how ideas and movements have historically matured. He found the importance of testing ideas out, “imagining and arguing together, moving toward shared objectives.”
Beckerman told the story of 1930 Ghanaians imagining a new path forward from the British colonialists. Needing a place to explore potential strategies for freeing themselves from Britain and imagining a new identity, Ghanaians created “The African Morning Post,” which allowed readers of all kinds to contribute and test out ideas. “The arguing allowed them to peek over the dividers of the tribe and establish new allegiances — they expressed their difference but did so on the same page, creating a new sort of African public sphere and helping lay the groundwork for independence.”
I hope this series can lend itself to these types of public debates. The point is not to use one playbook but to get past an unprecedented moment. To do so effectively, we need to test out new ideas.
Please let me know if you have thoughts, perspectives, or ideas of individuals to interview. I look forward to learning alongside you.
Executive Editor's Notes: Scott's first interview with Julia Roig, Founder & Chief Network Weaver at The Horizons Project, will be published on Thursday, March 6.
Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.
SUGGESTION: A Democracy Reform Movement- If we can define it
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
How one veteran’s coffee club is helping heal divides in San Antonio
Feb 27, 2025
Alice Garcia never planned on a military career, but a schedule change in high school set her up for an unlikely stint in the Army Junior ROTC program.
“The only elective that was available after my schedule change was Army JROTC,” she recalled. At the time, she saw it as merely another class, but her mom helped her look at it in a different way. Her mom told her that when she was in high school, women weren’t allowed to be cadets—so she had to be a ‘sponsor’ for the male cadets. “You should be thankful that you get to be a cadet in JROTC,” Garcia’s mother explained to her.
Seeing the opportunity that the program offered came at the right time, as Garcia’s instructors recognized her growing leadership skills. “One of the instructors mentioned, ‘You seem to be catching onto this Army thing. Have you thought about the military?’ And I immediately said, ‘No, I have to go to college, that’s non-negotiable for my family,’” Garcia said.
But learning that military service meant a scholarship opportunity changed things, and with the encouragement of her father, who served in both the Air Force and Army, she took the leap and applied to West Point.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The military experience she gained in the following years gave her firsthand insight into how individuals can come together with a shared goal, regardless of how vastly different their backgrounds may be.
“We’re used to people from all over the country...not looking alike and being diverse in their opinions, but we all have to come together for a common mission,” she explained.
From San Antonio to Korea, Garcia witnessed the military fostering unity and emphasizing cooperation. When she eventually decided to leave the military, the transition back to a civilian posed its challenges, and the stark divisions along political, racial, and economic lines became clearer than ever. She immediately felt that her leadership skills gained in military service had a purpose beyond the armed forces. “It’s almost in a lot of ways like finding your purpose again after the military,” she recalled. “Instead of defending the country from external forces, you’re defending it from internal forces.”
Like many veterans before her, Garcia searched for meaningful and impactful ways to serve her community. At first, she engaged in an organization for other young professionals in San Antonio, Texas, but she felt she was being called to do more. Through connections with friends and classmates from West Point, Garcia found her way to +More Perfect Union.
Garcia soon realized what she was actually searching for: Less talk for the sake of talking and more genuine dialogue, listening, and building relationships that break free of ideological lines.
“It was not just about talk; it was actually bringing people together to speak to each other and to have those interactions,” she said. “It wasn’t about debating; it was about understanding.”
It’s not surprising that one of Garcia’s most successful initiatives at +More Perfect Union has been the “Coffee Club”, a series of informal gatherings designed to encourage open discussions among people from different backgrounds.
In these events, people across the political spectrum are brought together not to debate policy—but to talk about issues that they can find common ground on. Questions Garcia may bring to the table include: What is hope? What is mercy? What is the American dream?
“In an hour, people who originally came in with different points of view are hugging each other...they’re just connecting with people again, and it is really kind of a beautiful thing to see,” she explained.
This approach, Garcia explains, proves that while many of us can get caught up in the whirlwind of policy and political figures, when we get down to core values, we often want the same things—no matter who we choose to vote for.
The Coffee Club events take place at locally-owned shops in San Antonio, followed by community service projects or volunteer work. This multi-pronged approach—pairing conversation with local action—helps members feel more involved and integrated into their communities.
Garcia draws from her military experience when moderating discussions, which can be difficult—yet healing—for both sides. “In the Army, you have to work with people who don’t think like you, who come from different walks of life. You learn to see beyond the uniform and respect the person.”
Veterans are uniquely prepared to help bridge these divides in the civilian world, Garcia explains. “We’re trained to operate in diverse environments, to lead teams with people who don’t always agree, and to focus on mission over personal differences,” she said. “If you don’t have real conversations with people, if you only see them through the lens of what the news or social media tells you, then it’s easy to fall into division.”
“It’s not just about veterans leading veterans; it’s about veterans leading communities,” she noted. “And not in the ‘command and control’ sense, but in the way that helps people work together, even when they disagree.”
Garcia’s service to the country and her fellow citizens didn’t end when she hung up her uniform. Instead, it evolved into a new kind of mission—one that’s every bit as important and in many ways even more challenging.
“The military gave me the tools, but this is where I get to use them,” she said. “This is about protecting the country in a different way.”
Jake Harriman is the co-founder of +More Perfect Union.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron hold a joint press conference in the East Room at the White House on February 24, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla
A First Step Toward Healing–A Modest Proposal
Feb 27, 2025
Despite a tumultuous set of political activities this past week, an intriguing opportunity was revealed, one that points to what might be a more effective path toward healing our contemporary American Schism.
As has been discussed frequently in recent years, many of Trump’s unorthodox actions and pronouncements serve primarily as political theater. His unconventional and often outrageous statements deliberately deploy emotional triggers, which serve as stimuli to effectively delight his MAGA supporters on the one hand, while simultaneously enraging his opponents. The latter usually adopt one of two response strategies: they either take the bait and indignantly riposte in-kind, or they stay silent, exhausted by the frequency of Trump’s provocation. What has now become abundantly clear is that both of these responses play right into Trump’s hand. Silencing the “resistance” is Trump’s first goal. But should the opposition choose the other path and retort with a sanctimonious counter, the very substance of any substantive policy disagreement therein becomes veiled by the acrimonious tone, resulting in a Trump win here as well.
Neither of these reactions is effective. But what I believe might portend a more effective strategy was employed last week by French President Emmanuel Macron.
To understand this alternative approach, one has to recognize that Trump’s oratorical strategy typically relies on conflating two or more ingredients in one pronouncement, usually a rant. The first is a valid policy idea based on a politically unpopular partial truth that has merit and bears consideration; the second is an inflammatory distortion, a set of lies, or a rewriting of recent events that deflects the policy issue through the reaction it has triggered.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Case in point: Following Trump’s bilateral discussion with Putin last week, Trump’s plum pudding remarks conflated two completely distinct components: One, the idea of Europe needing to shoulder the costs of its defense going forward, which presents a reasonable policy debate. The other, a reprise of Putin’s propaganda—a warped rewriting of the recent history of Russia’s invasion commencing the Ukrainian war—was the lodestone that drew the loudest response.
And unsurprisingly, this week we did observe both foreseeable responses. Senate Republicans, with a few brave exceptions, chose silence. President Zelensky, whom Trump personally attacked, defensively retorted, and most Democrats displayed their disdain for the explosive rhetoric without commenting on the obscured substantive policy ideas.
But President Macro took a different approach.
His very notable speech bifurcated the various ingredients that Trump calculatedly muddled. First and foremost, Macron corrected the history by clearly articulating the truth that Russia was and still is the aggressor in the conflict. Second, he drew a clear line in the sand on policy, asserting that any peace settlement that ‘gives in' to Russia is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the European Union. But third, on policy, he conceded the point to Trump. He explicitly accepted the legitimacy of the debate over burden-sharing within NATO (one of Trump’s consistent refrains), whilst at the same time, demonstrating that distorting historical facts to fit political narratives is unacceptable.
As Steven Jordan eloquently writes, Macron clearly called out the part of Trump’s rhetoric “which aligns with Putin’s revisionist history and shifts blame onto Zelensky. [Trump’s oratory] undermines the moral and strategic clarity needed to counter Russian aggression. Peace cannot be built on falsehoods, nor can Western security be maintained by ignoring reality.”
While Macron is facing tremendous domestic challenges amidst the parallel French schism (which, arguably, he himself has exacerbated), he is nonetheless emerging as the European leader with a veritable defense strategy for the continent. One that demands increased defense spending and less dependence on the U.S. He has embraced the reality that Europe has for too long relied on the U.S. for its defense and that, as Trump has suggested, Europe needs to shoulder the responsibility for its own security going forward.
Further, his maneuvering demonstrated his political savvy. Macron eschewed criticism of Trump and, instead, extricated the validity of Trump’s chosen path from the remainder of Trump’s jumble. He acknowledged the U.S. President’s right to step away from Europe and that European past and present dependence on the U.S. is no longer tenable. Macron, in a bold display of the leadership for which he rarely gets credit, framed this inevitable new direction as a challenge that Europeans must face. Convincing his European peers, such as Scholz and Starmer, to follow his lead will be no easy task, but by leveraging the reality of the pressure Europe faces to chart this new path, Macron’s words mark the end of an era and the beginning of a new one.
And he also teaches a lesson we all need to learn: Namely, if we are to survive Trump 2.0, we need to acquire and practice a new habit of responding to Trump’s logical ideas seriously, while still calling out his lies and not getting triggered by his bombast.
Seth David Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” and serves on the Advisory Councils at Business for America, RepresentUs, and The Grand Bargain Project.This is the third entry in the American Schism 2025 Series.Keep ReadingShow less
Undermining CDC’s Capacity to Respond to Outbreaks Will Cost Us
Feb 27, 2025
Ever watched the movie Contagion? Produced in 2011, this thriller tells the story of how a virus, brought to the U.S. by a woman who returns from a Hong Kong business trip, sparks a global pandemic. The film was inspired by the Nipah virus, one of over 200 known zoonotic diseases, meaning illnesses that originate in animals and can spill over to humans.
In the film, actress Kate Winslet plays the role of an Epidemic Intelligence Officer, a specialized scientist deployed on the frontline of a health emergency to track, monitor, and contain disease outbreaks. Her character embodies the kind of experts that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) abruptly sacked on Valentine’s Day at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.).
Established in 1951, the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) is a globally recognized, two-year epidemiology program that has trained over 4,000 “disease detectives,” who are equipped to respond to a wide range of public health challenges and emergencies. Once trained, these scientists are often hired by state or county health departments to strengthen local health systems in disease surveillance and to respond to public health emergencies. However, it remains unclear whether the “disease detectives” program may ultimately be spared, thanks to a President’s Day uproar from alumni of this globally recognized program managed by the C.D.C. But, regardless of which program is gutted, experts contend that the damage to global health security is already done.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“One of the main functions of CDC is international. For example, during the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, this agency was instrumental in containing Ebola in Nigeria,” shared Dr. Dennis Carroll, chair of the Global Virome Project and former director of the USAID’s Pandemic Influenza and other Emerging Threats Unit.
“Now that we have eliminated our foreign assistance and are prohibiting CDC from speaking and collaborating with WHO, our ability to control these events at their point of origin will be immensely compromised. Six months out, we're going to start seeing the consequences of not having a robust infrastructure, resources in place, and global coordination.”
Another critical program for global health security that saw at least 20 layoffs on Valentine’s Day was the Laboratory Leadership Service (LLS), a sister initiative to EIS, aimed at building the capacity of public health laboratory research. People trained through this program, launched in 2015, support rapid response to disasters and investigate emerging health threats. They help to detect harmful fungal infections, improve diagnostics and therapeutics for rabies, cholera and HIV (to name just a few), and re-establish lab operations after a hurricane or a tornado.
“Even though this program does not have the legacy of EIS, the competencies it builds are especially important in the early phases of an outbreak investigation when laboratories must work with speed and accuracy,” said Carroll. “If nothing else, during COVID-19, we witnessed how inadequate laboratory capabilities can put us behind the curve in terms of response.”
Under the premise of saving U.S. taxpayer’s dollars, Americans may be deprived of scientists trained to protect them against the spread of infectious diseases and food-borne illnesses, at a time when the country is facing multiple public health threats. Seasonal influenza is at an all-time high in America, with up to 23 million hospital visits for the flu and at least 370,000 hospitalizations, according to the CDC.
Americans are also facing outbreaks of Bird flu, tuberculosis, and measles. The CDC declared that the measles was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, thanks in part to an effective vaccine that became available in 1963. In 2024, 33 states reported 286 measles cases—most of them among unvaccinated people—and Texas is currently experiencing one of the worst measles outbreaks in the 21st century in America. Public health cannot be taken for granted. It is a long game that requires steady investments.
“Disrupting operations without a plan or vision on such a large scale inevitably introduces inefficiencies in places where speed protects the public’s health,” said Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, editor of Your Local Epidemiologist newsletter on Substack. “It often takes time to see the on-the-ground impact of high-level policy changes.” Though not policy changes per se, these layoffs are a sledgehammer to evidence-based public health initiatives.
Dr. Omer Awan, a physician and Forbes contributor, warns that firing frontline workers will cripple disease surveillance and endanger global health. Rapid response to emerging diseases depends on a well-trained workforce but eliminating specialists at the CDC weakens our ability to deploy investigators to hotspots and be ready for future pandemics. Fewer scientists dedicated to gathering and analyzing scientific data will hinder disease tracking and efforts to combat health disinformation.
Not to mention the issue of bioterrorism, or the intentional release of biological agents to cause harm to people, livestock, or crops. In 2001, letters with powdered anthrax spores were mailed in the United States, causing 22 infections and five deaths, according to the CDC. EIS officers were the foot soldiers of the government response in 2001. With increasing evidence that artificial intelligence may facilitate the accessibility of biological weapons, who will be our first responders in case of a bioterror attack?
Carroll says that most global health success stories reflect U.S. leadership and that without a robust infrastructure in place, and the resources to sustain it, we are in for a major wake-up call. “Be prepared for a virus that was on the cusp of eradication, like polio, to make a resurgence,” he added. “Forget about new emerging diseases. Think about those that are highly infectious and are making a comeback. I am also talking about the emerging threat posed by the highly pathogenic H5N1 Avian flu virus. If that breaks through, COVID-19 will look like a walk in the park. These actions are not about putting America first, they only ensure America will be last.”
Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist for the Fulcrum. Spadacini writes about social justice and public health.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More