As election day nears, the Let's Find Common Ground podcast speaks with two members of Congress, one Republican and one Democrat, who are reaching across rigid partisan divides, recognizing the value of compromise and seeking constructive change.
Protestors in Chicago, August 2025
A federal judge recently blocked plans to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. But the battle over militarizing American streets is far from over. On Monday, a federal appeals court lifted a temporary restraining order and ruled that the National Guard can be deployed to Portland, Oregon, amid ongoing protests at the Macadam ICE Facility.
Every time political leaders propose sending troops into cities or float invoking the Insurrection Act, they test a fragile boundary that keeps democracy in check.
This isn’t just a legal or political question. It’s a moral one. And it carries consequences that linger long after the last Humvee rolls out.
When National Guard members are ordered to confront civilians, the effects are profound. Not only for the communities they might be sent into, but for the service members themselves.
Over the past decade studying the mental health of service members and veterans, I’ve learned that the deepest wounds don’t always come from combat. One of the most profound — and most overlooked — is moral injury. This isn’t the result of trauma or fear. It’s the psychological harm that occurs when people are asked to act in ways that violate their own deeply held moral beliefs.
The National Guard occupies a unique and often misunderstood place in American life. These are citizen-soldiers who live, work, and raise families in the same cities they might be called to deploy in. They are electricians, EMTs, office managers, college students, and parents.
They enlisted to respond to crises such as natural disasters, humanitarian emergencies, and threats to national security. Not to stand in opposition to their neighbors.
Sending National Guard members into our own cities poses an ethical burden few are prepared for. When troops are asked to point weapons at fellow citizens, the sense of purpose can quickly unravel into guilt and shame.
This is the essence of moral injury. It often begins with a betrayal — not by enemies, but by leadership. It’s what service members feel when they’re given orders that violate the very principles they signed up to defend. Veterans and service members who experience moral injury describe it as a fracture: not of body, but of conscience. A sense that part of their ethical self has been broken.
And the harm doesn’t end when the mission does.
Moral injury has been linked to depression, anxiety, substance use, and even suicide. It erodes confidence in leadership, in institutions, and in one’s own judgment. It doesn't stay in uniform. It comes home, affecting families, workplaces, and entire communities.
This is why the Posse Comitatus Act, passed after Reconstruction, prohibits the use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement. It was designed to protect both the public and the military's integrity. The Insurrection Act, which grants limited authority to deploy troops domestically, was intended for rare, extreme threats to public order, not as a routine response to political dissent or unrest.
Threatening these powers undermines democracy and damages the military's moral foundation. It also burdens service members with responsibilities they were never trained — or ethically prepared — to shoulder.
There are better ways to protect our cities and our democracy.
American cities do not need armed interventions. They need investment: in schools, mental health care, jobs, housing, and violence prevention. Public safety is built on trust, not troops. On strong social structures, not the threat of military presence.
If political leaders continue to rely on military power to control civilians, the harm will stretch beyond the communities patrolled. It will reverberate through the ranks of those who serve, and into the foundation of the democracy they swore to defend.
Moral injury is not just a wound of the soldier. It is a wound of the nation — inflicted when political leaders turn the tools of defense against the people they were meant to serve.
How we choose to wield power today will determine the integrity of both our military and our democracy tomorrow.
Rachel Hoopsick, PhD, MS, MPH, MCHES is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of Illinois. She studies moral injury, mental health, and substance use among service members and veterans.
Joe Manchin
While appearing on CNN host Michael Smerconish’s show, former Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, now a registered independent, told Smerconish that “we have to have open primaries” in order to get candidates who prioritize representation to run and have a chance to win.
“We have to change the primary,” he added. “They are locking us out.”
- YouTube youtu.be
Manchin believes it is impossible to have a representative form of government when independent voters can’t even participate in elections in a meaningful way. The use of a closed or semi-closed system locks out about 24 million independents each election cycle.
Smerconish not only supports the adoption and use of open primaries, but he is also a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit in Pennsylvania challenging the Commonwealth’s use of closed partisan primaries. Plaintiffs say the system violates the state constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause.
“As one of our lawyers, Shannon Spector, said: ‘Denying a citizen the right to vote is the harshest form of taxation without representation,’” Smerconish has previously said.
It has been over a year since Manchin left the Democratic Party to register independent, citing the broken state of U.S. politics and the unwillingness of both parties to work together to find compromise on important issues.
“To stay true to myself and remain committed to put country before party, I have decided to register as an independent with no party affiliation and continue to fight for America’s sensible majority,” he said.
The decision, however, means that in West Virginia – where he resides – his options in taxpayer-funded primary elections are limited. His state uses a semi-closed system that allows the parties to decide who can and cannot participate in “their” primaries.
- YouTube youtu.be
The Democratic Party of West Virginia currently allows independent votes to participate, but the state’s Republican Party voted in January 2024 to close its primaries to party members only.
This leaves the 25% of the voting population that is registered unaffiliated with limited options and no real meaningful say in who represents them as most elections in the state are effectively decided in the Republican primaries.
Republicans hold a super-majority in the state legislature with 91% of the seats in the House of Delegates and all but two state Senate seats. Both of the state’s congressional seats are held by Republicans in districts that have a party advantage of R+22 (WV-1) and R+20 (WV-2).
This means voters not registered with the Republican Party are denied a meaningful say in taxpayer-funded elections, including independent voters.
Joe Manchin on Taxpayer-Funded Primaries: 'They're Locking Us Out!' was first published on Independent Voter News and was republished with permission.
Shawn Griffiths is an election reform expert and National Editor of IVN.
President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.
WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.
While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.
“Trump has gone the distance to nominate people who are loyalists, people that he can count upon to do what he wants,” said Stanford political science professor Terry Moe. “And for the most part, senators have just been willing to embrace anyone that he nominates.”
Moe said that, compared to past presidents, Trump has taken his determination to prioritize loyalty in presidential appointments “to the extreme,” laying aside the normal concern for competence.
Only a small group of senators has demonstrated a willingness to stand up against Trump’s appointments, and only behind closed doors, Moe emphasized. This was apparent in Ingrassia’s case — some senators reportedly “spent months quietly raising the alarm” against him.
Ingrassia was scheduled to appear before the Senate Homeland Security Committee for a confirmation hearing on Thursday, but had encountered opposition over his past use of racist language, promotion of conspiracy theories, and connection to Nick Fuentes, a White nationalist and Holocaust denier.
On Monday, Politico reported Ingrassia had told a group of fellow Republicans in a text chain that he has “a Nazi streak” and that the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday belongs in the “seventh circle of hell.”
Ingrassia’s lawyer would not confirm to Politico that the texts were authentic, instead implying that the texts could have been “manipulated” and were intended to make fun of liberals.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-La.) suggested Monday night to reporters that the administration should withdraw Ingrassia’s nomination.
“He’s not going to pass,” Thune said.
At least three other Republicans on the committee indicated they would oppose Ingrassia’s confirmation: Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).
Committee Democrats were also expected to vote against Ingrassia and have condemned his speech.
“This clear pattern of bigoted and inflammatory rhetoric along with his complete lack of any — any — relevant experience, is wholly disqualifying,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) on Thursday. “Paul Ingrassia should have never been nominated for such a critical oversight role, but his insistence just exemplifies the Trump administration’s outright contempt for independent oversight.”
Trump nominated Ingrassia in May to lead the Office of Special Counsel, a traditionally independent agency that enforces civil service laws and protects federal whistleblowers. Ingrassia is currently a White House liaison at the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans delayed Ingrassia’s confirmation hearing in July, with one pointing to concerns about his alleged ties to antisemitism. He has also faced accusations of sexual harassment.
In withdrawing from consideration, Ingrassia joins a group of Trump nominees who have been pushed to withdraw their names after some form of wrongdoing.
Before Trump entered office in his second term, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew as the nominee for attorney general after reports emerged that he had sex with a minor.
Last month, Trump withdrew his nomination for E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics after CNN reported on his now-deleted Twitter account that “featured sexually degrading attacks on Kamala Harris, derogatory remarks about gay people, conspiracy theories and crude insults aimed at critics of President Donald Trump.”
Still, many Trump nominees have been confirmed despite known misconduct and a lack of qualifications. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for instance, faced allegations of sexual assault, excessive drinking and financial mismanagement. Just recently, the Senate confirmed Herschel Walker as the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas, even though two women have accused him of domestic abuse. The Senate also confirmed Joe Kent, who is affiliated with the Proud Boys, to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.
“There are many people who are willing to engage in extremist behavior who get nominated, who these Republican senators vote for,” Moe said. “This Paul Ingrassia situation is just the exception to the rule. For the most part, there are all sorts of extremists who have been appointed, and Republicans are willing to fall in line.”
And, ongoing nomination processes have grown heated, as Democrats attempt to limit executive overreach. On Thursday, as the Senate Homeland Security Committee considered the rest of the nominations on its agenda, one seemingly contentious idea came to the fore: the independence of the Office of Inspector General.
Former congressman Anthony D’Esposito, who is up for consideration to be the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Labor, received particular attention.
During his nomination hearing on Thursday, Peters accused D’Esposito of being a “partisan operative,” as he had allegedly written a “pledge to carry out the president’s agenda” in his opening statement.
“President Trump has a vision to reign in the golden age of the American worker,” D’Esposito said when asked to comment on this claim. “I don’t believe that’s partisan. I don’t believe creating the fiercest, strongest military is partisan. I think that all should be American.”
Sen. Margaret Hassan (D-N.H.) also pressed D’Espesito and other nominees as to whether they would choose to uphold the rule of law or Trump’s agenda, two things that she said come into conflict.
In response, D’Espesito said Trump is a “man of integrity” who would never ask the nominees to break the law.
Hassan wasn’t satisfied.
“Your answer defies the factual record,” she said.
Sophie Baker covers politics for Medill on the Hill. She is a sophomore from Utah studying journalism and political science at Northwestern University. On campus, she writes for The Daily Northwestern, where she has served as an assistant city editor.
The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.
The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.
The dysfunction is widely recognized. Even within the political establishment, there is growing acknowledgment that the system is failing to serve the people it represents. As Vice President Kamala Harris recently reflected, the traditional approach of working “within the system” has become inadequate. Her call to reconnect directly with the public echoes the Founders’ original intent: a government responsive to the collective will of its citizens, not the machinery of political parties.
The problem is not ideology; it is structure. Congress has evolved rules that consolidate control in the hands of a slim majority. In an era when the margin between parties is often a handful of seats, this is both illogical and dangerous. Granting one faction total control over legislative scheduling, staffing, and debate when the electorate is nearly evenly divided guarantees instability. When majorities are razor-thin, genuine bipartisanship is not a luxury but a necessity for governance. Yet the current structure makes cooperation almost impossible.
It's time to bring the system into the 21st century – a new system that can function in today’s world of the Internet, cell phones, social media, artificial intelligence, and the challenges of rapid dissemination of misinformation. Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time...” It’s definitely time for a revolution in Congressional decision-making.
The clearest evidence lies in the committee system—the engine of legislative work. Committees decide which bills advance, which witnesses are heard, and what information is considered. But they operate under rules that favor the majority party in every respect: it sets the agenda, controls the staff, and can block bills without a vote. The result is predictable: a Congress trapped in a cycle of “messaging bills” designed to inflame and dictate rather than solve, and hearings more theatrical than substantive.
A rational first step toward reform would be to redesign the committee structure around parity and professionalism. The model already exists and has been operational for years. The House and Senate Ethics Committees—unlike all others—operate with equal party representation and nonpartisan professional staff. Their rules are specifically written to ensure fairness and procedural balance. Extending that model across all standing committees would address one of the deepest sources of dysfunction.
Under a parity model, committees would be evenly split between parties and co-chaired by members from each side. Staff would be nonpartisan and jointly directed. Committee funding would also be divided equally, ending the current two-thirds majority advantage. Such a structure would not paralyze Congress; it would compel negotiation. No bill could enter a committee or leave a committee without at least one vote from the opposing party. Consensus, not dominance, would once again become the mechanism of lawmaking.
Professional, nonpartisan staffing is central to this concept. Current staff structures are political extensions of the majority, focused on messaging and advantage rather than policy. Nonpartisan staff—retained within Committees—would shift the focus to expertise and institutional memory. When co-chairs reach an impasse, staff could propose technically sound, compromise solutions that allow both sides to move forward without appearing to capitulate. This small structural change would replace perpetual partisanship with a functioning negotiation process.
To prevent committees from degenerating into stalemate, additional mechanisms would be necessary. One such safeguard could be an “anti-gridlock” rule: if a bill meeting bipartisan co-sponsorship standards fails twice in committee due to a tie vote, it would automatically advance to the Floor. However, it would do so without amendment, forcing members to confront the imperfect text they refused to negotiate. The threat of losing control over the final wording would push committees to compromise rather than deadlock.
Transparency would serve as the second major safeguard. Every step of the committee process—hearings, testimony, communications, and drafts—should be instantly accessible to the public through an AI-managed database. Artificial intelligence could compile and index all public submissions, expert testimony, and legislative correspondence, creating a comprehensive, searchable record. This “transparency engine” would make obstruction, manipulation, or misinformation far more difficult to hide. When a co-chair blocks an amendment or suppresses a witness, the record would make that decision visible. The political cost of obstruction would rise, while the reward for cooperation would grow.
Restoring public trust also requires dismantling the leadership’s stranglehold on the floor schedule. Under current practice, the majority leadership determines which bills receive a vote, allowing them to bury legislation even when it commands broad bipartisan or public support. A mandatory floor-vote rule would end this gatekeeping. Any bill reported out of committee—or advanced by the anti-gridlock provision—would automatically receive a vote by the full chamber within a fixed period. The Speaker and majority leader would no longer have the power to unilaterally block legislation supported by a bipartisan committee majority.
Once a bill reaches the floor, amendments should be subject to a bipartisan filter: approval by both committee co-chairs. This simple rule would deter “poison-pill” amendments meant solely to sabotage or embarrass. Debate would focus on refining legislation, not posturing. Together, these changes would transform the legislative process from one of partisan control to one of shared governance, reflecting the narrow political balance of the country itself.
Such structural reforms would represent a genuine revolution in congressional decision-making—not through new ideology but through new architecture. Equal representation in committees, professional staff, mandatory transparency, and guaranteed floor votes would replace manipulation with accountability. Congress would again serve as a deliberative body capable of governing, not merely performing.
The challenge, of course, lies in implementation. How can Congress be persuaded to reform rules that remove power and control from its leadership? The problem is self-reinforcing: only Congress can change its own procedures, and those who benefit from the existing system are the least likely to do so. But history suggests that external pressure can drive internal reform.
Several pathways exist. Constitutional convention efforts, though theoretically possible, are unlikely to succeed in a polarized nation where 38 states must ratify any change. State-level ballot initiatives could be coordinated to demand congressional rule reform, but partisan divisions make uniform adoption improbable. Presidential leadership could provide a stronger avenue. A future administration might adopt congressional reform as a national cause, framing it as a prerequisite for solving major issues—from fiscal stability to national security—that are now paralyzed by legislative dysfunction.
Most promising, however, would be a unified citizens’ campaign led by the nation’s many good-government organizations, policy institutes, and reform-minded leaders. Think of a massive, Earth Day-type movement armed today with the Internet, email, cell phones, and AI-assisted data and communications capabilities.
Thousands of groups already work independently on transparency, ethics, and institutional reform. A coordinated national movement could press candidates and incumbents alike to publicly commit to specific congressional rule changes, treating structural reform as a condition of political legitimacy. The strategy would not require new law but public insistence—using elections, media, and civic networks—to make congressional modernization a central national issue.
Rebuilding trust in Congress requires more than rhetoric; it demands that the institution itself function differently. Equal representation in committees, nonpartisan expertise, guaranteed transparency, and enforced accountability together would transform the incentives of governance. Members would once again be rewarded for cooperation rather than obstruction, for building solutions rather than constructing roadblocks.
When political divisions are narrow, power must be shared or governance collapses. The Founders expected conflict, but they also expected reason and structure to mediate it. The reforms proposed here are consistent with that vision. By aligning congressional procedures with the realities of a closely divided electorate, Congress could once again fulfill its constitutional purpose: to deliberate, to compromise, and to govern in the interest of the nation.
A reformed Congress would not end partisanship—it would channel it productively. Decisions would emerge from negotiation rather than control, from debate rather than stalemate. Such a transformation would not require rewriting the Constitution, only rewriting the rules by which Congress governs itself. Doing so would mark a true renewal of American democracy: a modern revolution in the way a representative government makes its decisions, grounded not in ideology but in the restoration of respectable function and trust.
Jeff Dauphin, aka J.P. McJefferson, is retired. Blogging on the "Underpinnings of a Broken Government." Founded and ran two environmental information & newsletter businesses for 36 years. Facilitated enactment of major environmental legislation in Michigan in the 70s. Community planning and engineering. BSCE Michigan Technological University.
