Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less