IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Trump's "Restoring Truth and Sanity" order targets how museums and parks present slavery and racism. Why one writer says Americans should push back.
Nisian Hughes/Getty Images
Trump's Mendacious, Deceitful Rewriting of American History
Sep 30, 2026
History is made of two parts. One is indisputable facts and the other is the interpretation of those facts. The history of history is filled with varying interpretations of the basic facts, usually tinted by the perspective of the historian or commentator. That perspective can be the writer's political leanings, his philosophy, or any number of personal biases.
All historians, however, whether conservative or liberal, regardless of philosophy generally agree on the basic facts. For example, while there are fringe groups and individuals who deny that the Holocaust happened—that 6 millions Jews were killed by the Nazis—no reputable historian disputes that fact.
There is one class of individuals, however, who seek to rewrite historical facts to suit their needs, to reflect what they feel are the true facts of the country they lead, that supports their version of what has either made their country great or what the obstacles to greatness have been. These individuals are the dictators, the autocrats, who have ruled a country with a combination of demagoguery, fear, and force.
Hitler and Stalin were well-known for rewriting the history of their countries to suit their purposes. For example, Hitler in his antisemitic rant denounced German Jews in every way possible, calling them vermin, despite the fact that it was generally acknowledged that Jews played an important role in the advancement of German culture and science. All references to the achievements of Germans who were Jewish were removed from textbooks and encyclopedias. He prohibited Jewish involvement in all areas of German life and culture. He blamed Jews for the defeat of Germany in WWI—the infamous "stab in the back."
Stalin literaly rewrote Russian history to make the Soviet state part of the arc of history that made Russia great, downplaying the role of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution while giving the Russian people a dominating role in that history, minimizing other nationalities.
President Trump is seeking to rewrite American history in a typical Trumpian fashion. In his Executive Order, "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," he claimed that "revisionists' [liberals] have distorted American history for their ideological purposes and that he was restoring the truth. But in fact, Trump is the one who has distorted the truth of American history to suit his purposes and viewpoint.
In his Executive Order, he said that over the past decade, efforts have been made to rewrite American history, "replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth." To reverse that trend, he has among other things instructed the National Park Service and a variety of museums and other sites to remove all information which "inappropriately disparage Americans, past or living." This includes information about slavery, treatment of Native Americans, and a host of other subjects.
But slavery is an objective fact whose parameters and particulars are well known. Yet American history for much of our existence has been short on the acknowledgment of the role that slavery and racism have played in the development of American culture. It is only in the last 4 or 5 decades that the ugly truth of these aspects of American history and culture have begun to be factually presented at our nation's historic sites and museums, and in our school textbooks.
And even so, much is white-washed. As an example, people who visited Mt. Vernon—George Washington's home on the Potomac River—years ago, saw and heard nothing of Washington's slaves when on the tour; in 2015 that was no longer the case, but the information presented about the slaves was not telling it as it was; it was definitely softened.
Trump's Executive Order accuses revisionists of "casting our founding principles and historical milestones in negative light." It accuses them of taking our "legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness" and instead calling that legacy "racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed."
Not so. Liberals, such as myself, are not muted in their praise of our founding principles and all the advances that America has made. At the same time, however, they are unflinching in recognizing the ways in which the country has not lived up to its founding principles and feel that America will only truly experience its greatness when it lives up to those values.
The Executive Order further states that history should be "uplifting." To the extent that the facts warrant that, I would strongly agree; in my writing, and that of other liberals, the uplifting facts of our founding and existence are prominently featured. Indeed, the uplifting nature of our founding principles as stated in the Declaration of Independence is the basis of our hope for the future. But important aspects of our history that are not uplifting must be stated as well so that history is a true learning experience.
Trump cannot tolerate recognizing anything negative about American history because he feels it places America in a bad light and brings with it an obligation to right past wrongs. But his White supremacist and nativist supporters do not support righting past wrongs against Blacks, regardless whether those wrongs still impact their lives in the 21st century.
Through Trump's Executive Order, he has sought and largely succeeded in removing all mention of slavery and racism from our historic sites and museums. This is hardly "restoring truth" to American history. This is a huge affront to millions of Americans, not just the 15% who are Black.
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of his rewriting our history in a way that panders to his White supremacist and nativist supporters is that there have been no real protests—comments yes, but no protests—by the Americans people let alone the Black community to Trump's attempt to sanitize our history. He seeks to remove the ugliness from American history and in so doing has removed the story of the incredible strength of character that slavery and racism gave rise to. What a sad commentary on our times.
(In this connection, it is interesting to note that the only massive protests during Trump's second administration have been to protest Trump's immigration enforcement policies (ICE) and to protest the ways in which Trump has rolled back the advancement of women by prohibiting all DEI programs among other means.)
This is my second article on this topic (see, "Trump's Perversion of American History"), so important do I feel it is that Americans understand their country, both its promise and greatness as well as its weaknesses. Americans should take to the streets to protest this perversion of American history. We will only make America greater if we acknowledge what has weakened America and take the necessary steps to right past wrongs.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
First Amendment text of the US Constitution ripped in half -- Freedom of Speech , Religion or Press unconstitutional concept
Getty Images
Lawsuit Says Press Access Is Essential to Democratic Accountability
Sep 22, 2026
When POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW announced Monday that they were filing a federal lawsuit to restore their reporters’ access to the White House, they challenged more than the sudden and unexplained revocation of press credentials. They underscored a fundamental constitutional principle: a free press does not operate at the government's discretion.
According to their joint statement, the outlets are seeking urgent relief after the Secret Service denied their reporters entry to the White House complex on Saturday and confiscated their credentials. The action followed recent stories by these outlets examining the administration’s handling of classified documents and raising questions about transparency related to policy meetings. They wrote, “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
At The Fulcrum, we view this not simply as a dispute between the executive branch and three newsrooms, but as a test of whether democracy’s safeguards remain effective when power is used arbitrarily. Our mission is to provide a platform where all participants in politics can be informed, connect, and act to strengthen democracy in daily life. This work relies on a press corps that can ask difficult questions, pursue the truth, and report without fear of retaliation. You can help defend a free press by contacting your elected representatives to express support for press freedom, subscribing to or donating to independent outlets, and sharing trusted reporting with your community. Every action, even small ones, reinforces the foundation of accountable democracy.
A democracy cannot be repaired or maintained when those in power control information. Effective self-governance requires engaged citizens, transparent institutions, and journalists free to inform the public. Weakening any part of this ecosystem undermines the entire structure.
This lawsuit aims to reinforce the constitutional framework that protects everyone. It asserts that access to the White House cannot be granted or revoked based on political preference. It reminds us that journalism is a right secured by the First Amendment, not a privilege granted by government.
We support this legal challenge because its impact extends beyond the press room. It affects every community where Americans depend on independent reporting to understand government, assess its actions, and participate in civic life. Press freedom is not abstract; it is essential to democracy.
When that essential freedom is threatened, every American should take notice.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
The sky clears behind the U.S. Capitol after rainy weather on Sept. 2, 2026, in Washington, D.C.
Finn Gomez / Getty Images
We Didn't Get This Angry Because Americans Changed: We Got This Angry Because Washington Did
Sep 22, 2026
Something unusual has happened on the opinion pages of The New York Times recently.
Three very different writers have described three seemingly different American problems.
Kurt Andersen wrote about the “soft secession” already underway as red and blue states increasingly resist one another and the federal government. Michelle Goldberg, contemplating a new crop of novels about civil war and national breakup, described a constitutional system whose rigidity has come to feel like a cage — a country in which it is becoming easier to imagine escape from the existing order than reform of it.
And most recently, David French has written about another pathology: the transformation of political opposition into tribal identity.
French focuses primarily on the American right. He describes a movement that began by opposing the excesses of progressive “wokeness” but increasingly came to define itself as simply “anti-left.”
Once defeating the other side became the overriding objective, principle became negotiable. The enemy of my enemy became my friend. Extremists who might once have been shunned became useful allies so long as they aimed their fire in the right direction.
French’s essay is not an argument for constitutional restructuring. But it points toward a question we rarely ask: What if soft secession, constitutional paralysis, and political tribalization are not three different problems? What if they are three symptoms of the same structural problem?
New evidence suggests that the political temperature really is rising.
As The Economist reported recently, researchers examining more than 150 years of congressional speeches and millions of social media posts found that angry statements in Congress have risen 50 percent since 2013. The share of partisans who say the other party makes them angry has climbed to 76 percent. And anger is rewarded: angry tweets by members of Congress receive 59 percent more retweets than emotionally neutral ones.
The anger is accompanied by an extraordinary level of distrust. A new Gallup survey reported by Axios found that 89 percent of Americans say government corruption is widespread — a 20-year high — including 91 percent of Democrats, about 90 percent of independents, and roughly eight in 10 Republicans.
Neither finding proves that our political structure is responsible. But together they give us another reason to ask whether that structure helps sustain the anger and distrust.
Two nearly equal political coalitions with profoundly different ideas about government are locked in a perpetual winner-take-all contest for control of a single national government powerful enough to impose one coalition’s choices on the other.
We keep trying to lower the political temperature without asking whether the political architecture itself keeps turning up the heat.
Consider what is at stake in an American presidential election.
The winner does not merely choose tax rates or agricultural policy. Control of Washington can determine abortion policy, gun regulation, immigration enforcement, environmental regulation, voting rules, education policy, administrative power, and the composition of the Supreme Court for decades.
For committed partisans, losing therefore does not mean merely accepting four years of policies they dislike. It can mean being governed on questions they regard as fundamental by people they increasingly believe are hostile to their values.
Under those circumstances, why wouldn’t politics become tribal?
If the opposing coalition can govern you on matters you consider existential, portraying it as dangerous is not merely a campaign tactic.
It becomes politically rational.
And once the other side becomes dangerous enough, almost anything can be justified in stopping it.
French describes this process vividly on the right. While his examples come from today’s right, the underlying dynamic is broader: when politics becomes existential, political coalitions have powerful incentives to excuse behavior in allies that they would condemn instantly in opponents.
The obvious prescription is more tolerance. Better leaders. Better civic education. More dialogue. All would help. But perhaps we are asking individual citizens and politicians to overcome incentives that our governing system continually recreates.
There is another way.
I call it an American Union, where Red and Blue America each adopt a modern constitution reflecting the preferences of its own durable governing majority while remaining joined in the things that continue to benefit nearly everyone — a joint continental defense, a common currency, an integrated market, and freedom of movement.
Critics may be quick to argue that such an approach is simply secession. It is not. Conventional national breakup separates political systems and leaves the parties to decide which common institutions, if any, to rebuild. An American Union would reverse that sequence: preserve the institutions both sides still value, then divide constitutional authority over the questions on which they cannot agree.
Two constitutions would be drafted and presented to the states. Each state would choose, through a democratic process, the constitutional order under which it wished to live and, with that choice, its affiliation within the Union.
Red America would govern Red America. Blue America would govern Blue America.
But Americans could continue living, working, investing, and traveling throughout both. Goods and capital would cross an integrated internal market, as they do today. The dollar could remain the common currency. Continental defense could operate through a joint command, similar to what the United States and Canada have done for nearly 70 years under NORAD. A binding compact would govern the relationship between the two republics and prohibit either from using force against the other.
Why go this far?
Because conventional constitutional reform has become close to impossible. Article V requires two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. That means the 13 least populous states, together containing less than 5 percent of Americans, can block an amendment.
And procedure is only part of the problem.
Suppose Article V disappeared tomorrow and we were invited to write a modern American constitution from scratch. What would it say?
Would abortion be constitutionally protected? What about gun rights? How powerful should presidents be? Should the Electoral College survive? How should Supreme Court justices be selected? What voting rights should be guaranteed? How much power should remain with states? What protections should exist for religious liberty?
There is little reason to think more than 340 million Americans could produce a single answer to those questions commanding anything close to the consensus necessary for constitutional legitimacy.
That is the cage Goldberg identifies.
The Constitution is extraordinarily difficult to change precisely when Americans disagree most profoundly about what it should say. An American Union begins by accepting a fact we generally refuse to contemplate: perhaps Americans do not need to answer every foundational political question identically in order to remain joined as Americans.
Another objection is that America is not really red and blue. It’s purple.
Millions of Democrats live in Texas and Florida. Millions of Republicans live in California and New York. Democratic cities sit inside Republican states. Republican counties sit inside Democratic states. No boundary could produce ideologically homogeneous republics.
But homogeneity is neither possible nor desirable.
The objective would not be to move every liberal into one republic and every conservative into the other. Each republic would contain substantial political minorities, which is why strong constitutional protections for speech, religion, due process, political participation, equal treatment, and independent courts would have to be foundational.
Americans would also retain a genuine right of exit. Someone who concluded that life under the other republic’s constitutional order better reflected his values could move there without abandoning the broader American economy or losing the ability to live and work across the continent. During the transition, relocation assistance could be available to those who genuinely wished to move so that no one felt trapped on the wrong side of a new political boundary.
Most people, I suspect, would stay exactly where they are.
And there is another possibility: an American Union could make staying put easier if it changed the incentives that now pull both coalitions toward their extremes.
Critics will understandably fear that Red America would race toward the far right while Blue America raced toward the far left. But that assumes today’s political incentives would survive constitutional reconstruction intact. There is good reason to think they would not.
Once the opposing national coalition was no longer the enemy that had to be defeated, the political fault lines within each republic would begin to matter more. Red America would contain conservatives of very different kinds; Blue America would contain liberals and progressives with competing priorities. Parties seeking durable governing majorities would have to assemble coalitions within those more varied electorates. The relevant political center could shift inward, toward each republic’s median voter rather than toward the activists most animated by defeating the other side.
Remove the national winner-take-all prize and much of the reason for treating the other side as an existential enemy disappears with it. Extremism would also carry costs. Either republic could lose residents, businesses, and investment if its governing choices became intolerable to enough people.
Nor would either republic be politically pure. Millions of Democrats would remain in Red America, and millions of Republicans in Blue America.
They would not simply disappear from political life. They would be voters to persuade — and potentially decisive constituencies for candidates willing to move beyond their ideological bases. That gives both republics another reason to govern toward the middle rather than the fringe.
Politics would not become harmonious. Nor should it. Americans would still argue about taxes, regulation, inequality, policing, education, immigration, and countless other questions.
Conservatives would still criticize liberals. Liberals would still criticize conservatives. But the central political question could change.
Instead of “How do we stop those people from governing us?” it could become: “How should we govern ourselves?” That is a very different kind of political conflict.
And it speaks directly to the phenomenon French describes.
If politics ceases to be primarily about preventing a hated national enemy from acquiring power over you, the incentive to embrace anyone who helps defeat that enemy weakens too.
An American Union would preserve what still binds us — one defense, one currency, one market, freedom of movement — while reducing the number of fundamental questions on which one side gets to rule the other, and finally permit us to modernize our constitutional republic.
If we genuinely want to lower America’s political temperature, perhaps we should stop asking only how Americans can behave differently. We should ask whether the system that governs them should be different too.
We Didn't Get This Angry Because Americans Changed: We Got This Angry Because Washington Did was originally published by The Western Journal and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
A full rundown of this week's congressional action: 7 bills headed to the President, a stalled data center bill, and the votes lawmakers wanted on record.
May Lim / 500px/Getty Images
House Crams in Votes Before Extended Break
Sep 21, 2026
The House wasn’t expected to stay in session past this week and, in fact, they left a day early after Rep. Massie (R-KY4) introduced an impeachment resolution against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Nonetheless, they powered through many more votes than usual. We’ll cover the seven soon-to-be new laws and the bills of interest we highlighted in this week’s preview. As is its usual function, the Senate mostly acted as a break on legislation that had passed the House.
New Laws
These bills have all passed both chambers in identical form, so they next go to the President for signing.
- S. 759: Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act which would provide for standardization, publication, and accessibility of data relating to public outdoor recreational use of Federal waterways. This passed by voice vote, so no recorded votes are available.
- S. 550: A bill to provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois would extend the time for settling treaties from the 19th century for one year into the future from passage and designate a federal court to handle the case. This passed by voice vote, so no recorded votes are available.
- S. 195: American Music Tourism Act of 2025 passed by voice vote, so no recorded votes are available.
- S. 2398: Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act would reauthorize funding for public health responses to tick-borne diseases. This passed by voice vote, so no recorded votes are available.
- S. 2403: Retire through Ownership Act, which passed 401-14, would establish rules for independent evaluators of employee pension plans where such evaluators are needed, according to Congress.gov.
- S. 766: Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025 would require an annual report of taxpayer-funded projects that are over budget and behind schedule. This passed by voice vote, so no recorded votes are available.
- H.R. 5334: Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which passed 262-159 may in fact do the opposite of its title. According to an analysis on The Bulwark, the sanctions part provides no new powers nor imposes no new requirements on the President. As for tariffs, the wording is extremely vague and Catherine Rampell, the Bulwark author, argues persuasively that it would significantly expand the President’s ability to tariff globally as he sees fit.
Back to the Senate
These bills did pass the House, but with changes so now they go back to the Senate. The Senate can agree to the changes, amend them again and send them back to the House or just not act.
- S. 283: Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act would require the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and the Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop a standard methodology for identifying the country of origin of seafood to support enforcement against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This passed by voice vote, so no recorded votes are available.
- S. 240: Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act of 2025 would make changes described by Congress.gov. This passed by voice vote, so no recorded votes are available.
Stalled in the Senate
This bill passed the House by an overwhelming margin of 417-3. An attempt to move it quickly through the Senate failed because the bill only recommends that increased costs due to data center expansion be borne by companies building the data centers, but does not require them to bear those costs. Therefore, it did not get unanimous consent in the Senate to move forward. In order to get to a vote, the bill will likely have to be amended. However, there won’t be any action on it until at least after the election in November.
- H.R. 9340: Ratepayer Protection Act would, despite its name, mostly provide support for data centers and other intensive users of existing power resources, according to The Guardian
Bills Passed by Voice Vote
These bills will all go to the Senate next now that they’ve passed the House by voice vote. They are not close to becoming law.
- H.R. 979: AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act of 2025. The rationale for this bill is that other communication technologies are not guaranteed in rural or mountainous areas while AM stations are readily available. This would effectively be a new regulation since it would require car makers to include AM which they don’t always do now.
- H.R. 2004: Tyler’s Law would require testing for fentanyl for suspected overdoses in emergency rooms. We wrote about the complexities of getting bills passed using this bill as an example a year ago. What we said then is necessarily even more true now.
- H.R. 10167: Common Cents Act; this bill would codify the end of the penny as well as direct retailers to round all prices down or up to the nearest nickel.
- H.R. 10204: Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act. This bill would eliminate “the presidential nomination process for appointment of the Librarian of Congress and Director of GPO, allowing them to be chosen exclusively by Congress through a bipartisan commission. It also removes the Librarian’s supervisory authority over the Register of Copyrights and the Copyright Office while maintaining the support it receives from the Library. The bill also establishes an Office of Inspector General at the Copyright Office and requires GPO to establish a human management system” per our colleagues at First Branch Forecast
Bills Legislators Wanted to be on Record About
All of these bills are still early in the legislative process. They will go next to the Senate where they may be amended or simply not acted on.
- H.R. 4646: Whistleblower Protection Act of 2025, which clarifies that whistleblower protections described in section 4712 of title 41, United States Code, apply to any contract funded from amounts appropriated to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, passed 424-0.
- H.R. 8278: Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act, which would require federal financial regulators to assess how their technological systems inhibit real-time supervision of regulated entities and how their procurement rules limit the testing of new technologies, passed 417-7
- H.R. 9497: Water Resources Development Act of 2026, which provides for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the United States and provides for the conservation and development of water and related resources, passed 415-9.
- H.R. 2978: GUARD Act, which would permit State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies that receive eligible Federal grant funds to use such funds for investigating elder financial fraud, pig butchering scams, and general financial fraud, and to clarify that Federal law enforcement agencies may assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies in the use of tracing tools for blockchain and related technology, passed 414-7.
- H.R. 9500: Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act which would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on deductions for personal casualty losses and to provide for increased taxpayer relief with respect to theft losses involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, passed 408-17.
- H.R. 4219: National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act of 2025, which would authorize the appropriation of $10 million each year over the 2027-2033 period for the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a regional program to identify and respond to invasive species threats within or adjacent to National Wildlife Refuge System land and water (CBO), passed 371-33.
- H.R. 9576: National Fraud Enforcement Division Act of 2026, which would create such a division within the Department of Justice, passed 352-72.
- H.R. 3276: Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act of 2026, which would provide statutory authority for the Urban Bird Treaty Program, which is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This program works with communities to support conserving and managing birds that live in and migrate through urban areas. This support includes grants administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and provided to entities including government agencies, community groups, and academic institutions for conducting activities related to the program. It passed 345-60.
- H.R. 2140: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2025, which reauthorizes an existing diesel emissions reduction program, passed 343-79.
- H.R. 10326: PROOF Act which would enhance information-sharing capabilities between Federal law enforcement and State agencies to detect, investigate, and prosecute fraud in certain Federal programs, and to protect individual privacy, passed 217-207.
- H.J.Res. 213: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”, passed 214-208.
- H.J.Res. 210: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision”, passed 216-211.
House Crams in Votes Before Extended Break was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More