Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Safeguarding Democracy: Addressing Polarization and Institutional Failures

Opinion

Safeguarding Democracy: Addressing Polarization and Institutional Failures

American flag

Nattawat Kaewjirasit/EyeEm/Getty Images

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.

Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!


Read More

Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less