Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

There’s no emergency response plan for this government crisis

Opinion

A crack in the Capitol Dome

We need a plan to fix what's wrong with Congress, writes Frazier.

zimmytws/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

Has it ever struck you as odd that cavemen didn’t have fire departments? After all, they discovered fire, right? The absence of this emergency service, though, makes a whole lot of sense given that cave folks weren’t in danger of burning anything down.

The upshot is that we’re only capable of designing emergency plans for the scenarios we’ve encountered or, at least, can imagine happening with some likelihood. So we don’t have much of an excuse for failing to plan for worst-case scenarios once we’ve experienced that storm, disaster, calamity, etc.

Just as cavemen had no reason to organize fire departments; the Founders had no reason to plan for Congress failing to operate. In fact, the Founders were scared more of legislative tyranny than legislative lethargy.


Pardon the brief lesson in constitutional design, but I promise it’s worth it.

In response to King George III’s manifold abuses, the Founding Fathers (understandably) became extremely opposed to excessive or unchecked power being held by the executive branch. That’s why states limited the powers available to their respective governors and why the Articles of Confederation (the predecessor to the Constitution) did not establish an executive branch. Welp. The Founders soon realized that their attempts to prevent one worst-case scenario (tyranny by a king) led to another (tyranny by legislatures).

Rather than sit on their hands, the Founders responded to yet another governance debacle by picking up a quill and drafting the Constitution. This time around they distributed power across three different branches –the legislative, the judicial and, yes, the executive. Based on their experiences with ambitious officials attempting to exercise their powers to the fullest extent possible, Hamilton, Madison and the rest of the crew created a system of checks and balances. Under this system, each branch received specific powers as well as specific ways to rein in any egregious acts by the others. What the Founders did not anticipate was a branch coming to an absolute standstill, especially the legislative branch – the one they had come to fear most.

Fast forward 200-plus years and the cave is now on fire – Congress has come to a halt. Consider that the 118th Congress barely managed to pass 27 bills last year, which makes it one of the least productive in quite some time. And the future doesn’t seem to promise any legislative giddyup for at least two reasons: In the short run, election years rarely lead to major legislative initiatives given a turn in congressional focus to securing votes at home rather than on the House floor; in the long run, the House seems destined to become more legislatively lethargic due to entrenched partisanship. According to political scientist Larry Sabato, “One growing trend in American politics is that fewer and fewer members of the U.S. House hold districts that the other party won for president.” In other words, red districts will stay red and blue will stay blue.

Something's got to give. In this era of a politically paralyzed Congress, the other branches have exceeded their intended roles in order to fill a legislative lacuna – or at least that’s the common perception. Concerns about activist judges and a jump in executive orders have spread on both sides of the aisle. The cumulative result is a system that’s operating in a mode the Founders didn’t anticipate; there’s no escape route for this scenario.

Rather than accept this fate, we need to exercise the same agency as our forefathers. Let’s restart conversations about term limits; let’s revive discussions about campaign finance reform; let’s explore means to increase the public’s ability to hold their respective members accountable for inaction. I’m not endorsing any of these approaches but I’m vehemently opposing the status quo.

We’ve been stuck in this emergency situation for too long. Thankfully, we’ve proven capable of planning for and putting out fires before. We can do it again.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less