Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The American Government’s People Problem

The American Government’s People Problem
Yellen puts Congress on notice over impending debt default date: 5 essential reads on what’s at stake
Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

The President of the United States should be competent, ethical, and full of vigor. This is obvious given the demands of the job. Yet former President Joe Biden, who’s 82 years old, didn’t run for reelection over concerns about his mental facilities. And current president Donald Trump, himself 78, actively tried to reverse the previous election.

Is this really the best we can do for America’s top job?


The presidency, however, isn’t the only problem. The median age in the Senate is 65 years old. The House of Representatives is packed with under-qualified social-media celebrities. And discontent with the judiciary is so bad that many want to impose term limits on federal judges. Indeed, a recent New York Times poll found that nearly 90 percent of Americans think the nation’s political system is broken.

There are, of course, many skillful public servants. And they quietly do important work every day. But far too many government officials shouldn't have the responsibility we've given them.

The American government’s people problem is driven by several factors. First, incumbents stick around far too long. Biden's long refusal to withdraw from the 2024 election may have cost Democrats the presidency. If Kamala Harris had campaigned for multiple years (like Trump did) instead of multiple months, she might have won. By the end of his term, moreover, Biden was far from the right person to occupy the Oval Office.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg likewise held onto her job too long. She could have resigned during Barack Obama’s first term when she was 80, and the Democrats controlled the Senate. She refused. And Trump later replaced Ginsberg with Amy Coney Barrett, who promptly joined a bare majority of justices and overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is 70, likewise rejected calls to step aside while Biden was president.

In Congress, meanwhile, the median age in the House is 57 and, as noted, 65 in the Senate. Yet the median age in the country is 39. Being an incumbent carries a big advantage: you can keep your constituents happy with results from office. This dynamic populates Congress, with people who were first elected long ago. Nancy Pelosi has been in the House since 1987. Mitch McConnell has been in the Senate since 1984. Both are over 80 years old.

The second factor contributing to the government’s people problem is compensation. Most congresspeople make about $175,000 annually. Not too shabby. But compared to alternatives in the private sector, it’s too low, especially in locations where the cost of living is high. Federal judges, for their part, make about $250,000 to a little over $300,000 annually. This is a fraction of the alternative, where lawyers at large law firms make millions.

This comparatively low pay deters talented people from entering government. And it attracts both those who are so rich that pay doesn't matter ( about half the members of Congress are millionaires) and those without better-paying alternatives.

Finally, the biggest problem of all is political dysfunction. American government is overflowing with tribalism, rage, and irrationality. Every … single … day. Attention seekers, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, have great influence. While high-quality officials, like Liz Cheney, get run out of town. And smart, rational people don’t run in the first place.

The result of these three factors is a federal government increasingly unable to address our nation’s mounting public-policy failures—from a broken immigration system to deteriorating public schools, to excessive incarceration, to widespread drug overdoses, to startling economic inequality. The world is growing more complicated as Washington gets more dysfunctional. With a reality television star back in the presidency, these negative trends are only getting worse.

William Cooper is the author of How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t

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