Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The dysfunction continues

Senate votes 50-50

The dysfunction continues

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Yesterday, our congressional dysfunction continued as the vote on the For the People Act was along purely partisan lines with a vote of 50 Democrats in favor and 50 Republicans against. The level of dysfunction is heightened by the fact that this was not a vote to pass the voting rights legislation, but simply a vote on whether to even debate the proposed legislation.

Whether one believes that the wave of state-level voting changes is warranted or not, whether one believes in the voting rights legislation in its present format or not, there is no doubt that Americans believe that voting is at the heart of our democratic process. Yet the vote as to whether to even have a debate on the subject was 100% partisan.

As I listened to the rationale on both sides before, during and after the vote, I realized that the rhetoric was devoid of any desire for an open-minded search for the truth and a workable solution on this vital issue.

As I switched channels between FOX, MSNBC, and CNN, I witnessed the dogma and observed how it can give the holder a warm and comforting feeling of security in this time of great change and anxiety in our nation. Comfort unfortunately does not allow for the possibility of advancement and a modicum of common ground.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Polls repeatedly show that a vast majority of Americans in both parties want fair and open elections. Yet this is rarely mentioned by the press or members of Congress as the dysfunction continues. Finding the balance between reasonable voter ID that 75% of Americans favor and federal standards to ensure that voting is accessible and fair cannot even be debated as both sides are entrenched in the dogmatic rhetoric of left versus right politics.

Therefore, the dysfunction continues as both sides enflame their followers. A writing by professor Dan Schnur published in Allsides.com entitled Both Parties Rely on Fear-Mongering articulates the problem.

Democrats issue dire warnings of the threat of voter suppression. Republicans sound the alarm about the menace of voter fraud. But both parties are dramatically overstating an exaggerated problem to whip their most devoted supporters into a frenzy. The result is that confidence in the foundation of our democratic process is at an all-time low, driven down by unyielding partisan attacks from both the left and the right as a cynical tool to motivate their most committed loyalists.

Last night as I reflected, I was reminded of a quote from Brené Brown, a research professor who has spent a decade studying vulnerability, courage, authenticity, and shame:

My inability to lean into the discomfort of vulnerability limited the fullness of those important experiences that are fraught with uncertainty: Love, belonging, trust, joy, and creativity to name a few.

You may ask how this in any way relates to the dogma perpetrated by our political leaders who each have their own prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by their side. Perhaps it is our fear of uncertainty, and the vulnerability that comes with uncertainty, that leads the citizens of our country to gravitate to candidates who claim to have the answer, who portray everything with a high degree of certainty in comforting black and white terms.

Our nation is trapped by political dogma and the greatest casualty is the truth that is needed for pragmatic solutions. Everything gets lost in the posturing, the fear mongering, and the close mindedness as nothing gets done. And We the People are the collateral damage of this partisan warfare.

We can and must do better as a nation. Now is the time, because so much is at stake.

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