Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

​Have you no sense of decency, America?

Rep. Paul Gosar

Rep. Paul Gosar, seen riding the Capitol subway, is a reflection of the system in which he operates, writes Weichlein.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Weichlein is the CEO of FMC: The Former Members of Congress Association.

Just in time for Veterans Day, Rep. Paul Gosar discovered his inner warrior. Armed with an anime sword and less than impressive software, the Arizona Republican released to the world a 90-second window into his soul: his fantasy of being a flying far-right superhero who murders woke libs such as his colleague, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and tries to do the same to President Biden.

If a high schooler shared a clip of themselves decapitating a fellow student, the principal, parents and school district would take notice. When a Republican member of Congress does so, the answer by party leadership is that libs/lamestream media/cancel culture propagandists can’t take a joke. While there certainly are many of us who find Gosar’s behavior vile and Republican leadership’s collective shoulder-shrug disappointing, I’m guessing from a fundraising point of view coupled with the need to demonstrate fierceness to primary voters, the 90 seconds of fantasized bloodshed was highly profitable.

Vilifying your political opponent is neither new nor practiced by one party alone, but the ease by which calls for action can be disseminated via social media heightens a message’s impact and brings with it the added responsibility for grown-ups to act as such. I don’t think Gosar has a sword in his office and is just waiting for the right opportunity to turn fantasy into action. I also don’t think he will enter the Capitol and cause bloody carnage. However, on Jan. 6, hundreds of our fellow Americans did just that, spurred on by years of ever-increasing violent political messaging by office holders and seekers alike.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


When I first saw Gosar’s fantasy clip, I was reminded of Joseph Welch. You may not know who he is, but you’ll certainly know what he said and who he said it to. During a fierce exchange with Sen. Joseph McCarthy on June 9, 1954, Welch just couldn’t take the senator’s outrageous and unhinged conspiracy theories any longer: “Until this moment, senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” If ever given the opportunity, that’s what I envision myself saying to Paul Gosar: “You walk the same marbled floors as Abraham Lincoln, John McCain and John Lewis. Where’s your sense of decency?”

Shouldn’t simply being a “decent” human being be the threshold when it comes to choosing our elected representatives? Can’t we expect that, at a minimum, public officials will act with common decency? That’s my fantasy, and it doesn’t involve a sword. However, upon further reflection, it occurred to me that Gosar’s video is simply a reflection of the system that he is stuck with. Asking him to respect an ultra-liberal colleague is like asking a linebacker to be kind to the quarterback.

Gosar represents a solidly Republican district and has been elected every two years with about 70 percent of the vote. Thanks to gerrymandering, the only contest he has to worry about is the Republican primary. Like most other districts in America, if you win your primary, you’re pretty much guaranteed the seat, and that’s true of state maps drawn by Democrats as well.

There are about 800,000 people living in Gosar’s district, and about 80,000 of them voted for him in the Republican primary. That means that roughly 10 percent of the people in the district bothered to show up for a primary election. They did their civic duty. They made a point of casting a vote and being part of the process. They got in their cars, took a couple of minutes out of their busy schedules, and showed up, whereas most others couldn’t be bothered. Gosar knows full well that it is those 80,000 voters who make all the difference; his message needs to resonate with them and no one else. And in their estimation, common decency is not what they’re looking for in their representative.

Congress is a reflection of America and its people. Right now, that reflection is one of division, hyper-partisanship, and anger. It is irrational to expect common decency from a candidate for office, when common decency is political suicide and working across the aisle is held against you. It isn’t the member of Congress who is letting us down, it is the voter who thinks primaries are unimportant and performing your civic duty is too much work. At perilous times such as these, being a silent observer rather than an engaged citizen is indecent.

If Americans of all political stripes don’t stand up and act by electing candidates who at a minimum meet the “decent human being” test, the current climate will only get worse and worse. In order to effectuate change, voters must give candidates for office an incentive. Right now, with too many gerrymandered districts that have elevated primaries to the deciding contest, the incentive for many candidates is to perpetuate the tribal and belligerent narrative. And the incentive for party leadership is to punish members who voted for legislation championed by the other party and rally around a member whom you’d rather not have as your next-door neighbor. Americans who have given up on representative democracy are to blame, and that’s the ultimate indecency.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less