Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A better recipe for holiday meals and politics

US Capitol building at night with Christmas tree and reflecting pool in foreground
Allan Baxter/Getty Images
A surprising example of political collaboration revealed itself to me during the Thanksgiving break, and it came from an unlikely source: a video game. Like many parents this season, I welcomed the return of a college student from his freshman year at a Virginia college. And like many teenagers, one of his first go-to activities was to challenge his high school sister to a video game competition.

My wife and I have monitored (or to be more exact, policed) our kids’ video game usage over the years. No violence, no guns, no military games. So, years ago we introduced a game to our kids that they actually liked even though it met all of our requirements.

“Overcooked” requires participants to collaborate to prepare a meal. Players must talk to each other in advance, plan the process for adding ingredients and, when the game starts, share resources and collaborate on strategy to prepare a meal. With a timer adding deadline pressure, players get a sense of tension and fun without the usual disgusting violence. Although there is yelling involved, (“No, I said to add tomato sauce — not pesto — to the pizza!”) the key to winning is communication and collaboration to prepare a meal efficiently and quickly.

At the risk of extrapolating too much from a video game analogy, the revelation perhaps did suggest a solution to the problem of politics at the holiday dinner table. Maybe Americans invest too much in worrying about the potential for political discord at a holiday meal and miss that broader message and meaning of the “holiday season process.” The meal itself is a culmination of an undertaking requiring many people working over a couple of days, resulting in a mutually beneficial (and usually delicious) outcome. Menus are often designed by committee, shopping is conducted by multiple allies and dish preparation is often delegated to many hands. For most families, meals during the holiday season are a collective effort requiring communication, compromise and trust.

The analogy between holiday dinners and how Congress functions is an interesting analogy. While most Americans don’t see it, Congress often creates more constructive results than is normally perceived. I have had a fortunate vantage point to view our democracy. Working for many years for a nonprofit organization that provided confidential advice and training for members of Congress and staff, I had a front row view of the nation’s premiere legislative body in action … and it’s not as bad as most Americans think.

Compromises are “cooked” up on a weekly basis. Constructive legislation may take time to “marinate.” But eventually the end product is eminently palatable to the public. And usually, by the end of a congressional session, a buffet of generally positive outcomes is served to the American people.

To be sure, we have not cracked the code and developed a recipe for solving some of our nation’s thornier problems, such as immigration reform, entitlement benefits and managing the budget deficit. But generally speaking, Congress follows the same methods of good cooks: Plan well, get good ingredients and get the meal on the table in time for dinner. Recent Congresses have produced the largest infrastructure bill in a generation, developed a new method for approving drugs at the FDA and approved every federal budget since 2011 by wide bipartisan majorities.

So perhaps our nation’s leaders would do well to take a step back from the nasty rhetoric that poisons the flavor of our democratic dialogue. Instead, they should consider how to be great chefs, with the culmination being a banquet of legislative accomplishments. Perhaps the holiday dinner preparation analogy is a recipe for satiating the national appetite for positive change, leaving the electorate well fed with a diet of healthy outcomes for the body politic.

Fitch is a former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former Capitol Hill staffer.

Read More

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting maps

Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting

Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.

Context: in the news

In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

The Cheshire Cat (John Tenniel) Devouring the Gerrymander (Elkanah Tisdale )

Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

America has a long, if erratic, history of expanding its democratic franchise. Over the last two centuries, “representation” grew to embrace former slaves, women, and eighteen-year-olds, while barriers to voting like literacy tests and outright intimidation declined. Except, that is, for one key group, Independents and Third-party voters- half the electorate- who still struggle to gain ballot access and exercise their authentic democratic voice.

Let’s be realistic: most third parties aren't deluding themselves about winning a single-member election, even if they had equal ballot access. “Independents” – that sprawling, 40-percent-strong coalition of diverse policy positions, people, and gripes – are too diffuse to coalesce around a single candidate. So gerrymanderers assume they will reluctantly vote for one of the two main parties. Relegating Independents to mere footnotes in the general election outcome, since they’re also systematically shut out of party primaries, where 9 out of 10 elections are determined.

Keep ReadingShow less