The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Luke Harris, a Fall Intern with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share his thoughts on what democracy means to him and his perspective on its current health.
Representative Democracy is a form of self-governing; our Constitution delineates a set of values and principles that evolve and materialize as Americans exercise their rights to challenge societal norms and create legal and social change. The Democratic state produces the circumstances that provide the greatest freedoms, such that they are consistent with equality under the law: the liberties to freely express one’s ideas, vote in open elections to decide the politicians who will represent our diverse interests, and defend against leaders or citizens who endanger these freedoms. The current hyperpolarization, apathy, and extremism are incompatible with the preservation of these freedoms and the protection of our country. This is the deleterious effect of the failure of our educational and scientific institutions.
Liberalism is curring the flamer, sniffy, childhood-enduring preconceptions, and unthoughtful, or unchallenged beliefs—the ideas and attitudes that provide the easiest answers, but often perpetuate in collective thinking, and social pressure; the accountability of schools—in K-12, and higher education—to teach students how to think critically; preparing citizens of a democracy, with any level of education, to synthesize information and form their opinions independent of group identity or ideology. However, my teachers taught critical thinking as an intellectual skill and did not properly acknowledge or instill its value. The consequence of learning to think independently and reexamine yourself, your thoughts, and your beliefs should be uncomfortable; it can be linked to losing your social/self-identity, questioning your faith or secular-moral values, and often facing disapproval from your parents and friends. The issue is exacerbated in higher education, where there is social pressure to think in a certain way, and professors continue to teach students what to think, rather than how to think.
Furthermore, the conversation needs to include everyone. Someone with a thought disorder, people who are prone to emotional outbursts, have social or communication challenges, or have lower intelligence, or learning disabilities, are being excluded from these conversations. If someone does not have the words to express their ideas, whatever they can say could direct the group to new ways of thinking; if someone is mentally disabled, they may change how people talk with each other, and bring a different emotional attitude. However, if the person is not intelligent or they are harder to speak with, we are denying them entry into these types of discussions where they can provide value. Personally, in early elementary school, I had many of these problems. My experience is different; I make connections more fluidly, I have less linear thinking, but I can present as neurotypical and intelligent. People will listen and consider what I have to say, but someone who cannot communicate as clearly or is harder to talk with does not receive the same respect. The consequence is reinforcing the same ideas and providing only one way to think.
The scientific community is responsible for engaging in public discourse, making their discoveries and ideas accessible to the public, and honestly discussing criticisms and challenges to their work, which includes spotlighting different public figures in their field. If topics or theories are backed by strong empirical evidence, then scientists should denounce and criticize the merits, character, and fitness of those people presenting unbacked science or dangerous assertions. However, consistent appeals to authority and consensus are a strong indication that members of the scientific community are succumbing to social pressure or represent a homogenous intellectual class. The contributions of science are essential for the functioning of a healthy democracy. For this reason, classicist-collectivist behavior across various fields of research is concerning and also symptomatic of educational institutions that have failed to effectively instill the values and skills discussed above—those most essential for serious inquiry.
Democracy is unsustainable and short-lasting when there are severe restrictions on freedom of expression. The highest form of expression is holding your representatives accountable to your interests, both by speaking loudly and voting out incumbents when they are dishonest, unresponsive, and unrepresentative of their constituents. In any democracy where the party convention suppresses contest and does not put forth any alternative options, it is necessary to vote against party lines, because elected officials who are assured of their reelection are no longer accountable to represent the interests of their constituents. There is contention in democracies about the extent of acceptable speech. The line for the strongest advocates is often hate speech, and the debate about the function and benefits of hate speech should remain lively. However, there is a strong argument that protecting hate is necessary for remaining vigilant and aware of the dangerous fringes and movements within a democracy.
The excursions into democratic governing have not proven to be sustainable in the long term. This form of government is the freest and rests on the maintenance and continuance of the freedoms it provides—these freedoms and the institutions, such as schools, and the scientific establishment, serve specific purposes that both represent what democracy is, why democracy is the most befitting to the protection of human dignity, and justice, and the factors that determine how well and how long any democracy will function. The first step forward is understanding that polarization is the consequence, not the cause. The extreme polarization tearing our country apart is the consequence of our failing educational and scientific institutions.
Luke Harris is an op-ed author who writes about the US, UK, and international politics, policy, and culture. He has been published in outlets such as The North American Anglican and The Conservative Woman.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.