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
Supporters of President Donald Trump, February 09, 2024 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Can Coalitions Built on Opposition Still Govern?
Jun 02, 2026
Political parties are supposed to do two things at once: win elections and govern. Those are not the same skill.
Winning elections requires assembling coalitions large enough to secure power. Governing requires maintaining enough internal agreement to make decisions, negotiate trade-offs, allocate resources, and sustain policy direction once power is achieved.
American politics reveals the tension between those two functions.
The first essay in this series described how political coalitions can weaken long before political institutions visibly destabilize. Parties may remain electorally competitive even as the alliances inside them become more internally strained and socially divided, and less capable of producing coherent governance.
One reason is that opposition itself has become one of the strongest forces sustaining political coalitions.
For much of American history, political coalitions were organized primarily around governing agendas: industrial growth, labor rights, anti-communism, tax policy, civil rights, or the role of federal power. Internal disagreements existed, sometimes intensely, but coalitions remained viable because their factions still shared enough governing priorities to stay together.
Coalitions can be reshaped underneath stable-looking institutions. The forces driving that change vary across eras. Today, opposition politics has become one of the strongest. In 1971, two months before being nominated to the Supreme Court, Lewis Powell wrote a confidential memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arguing that American business needed to organize itself politically with the same discipline and long horizon that its critics had brought to academia, courts, and media. The memo helped catalyze a wave of institution-building in think tanks, legal advocacy, and political operations whose effects became visible across the following decades, from the Reagan realignment through the Gingrich revolution and the Tea Party movement. That a sitting Supreme Court nominee would write such a document remains a striking moment in American political history, regardless of one's view of its merits.
I watched part of what followed. The Republican administration that established the Environmental Protection Agency and signed the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970 had treated environmental regulation as a bipartisan concern. By the early 1980s, running water-pollution enforcement contracts for that same agency, I was watching the posture reverse. Economic-impact tests gained weight against health and environmental findings, and political appointees arrived with industry ties earlier administrations would have treated as conflicts.
That kind of reshaping took time, and the Powell memo did not cause it on its own. A parallel institutional buildup, organized around different priorities, eventually reshaped the other party as well. The two buildups are not perfectly symmetric — the Powell-era institutional architecture has a more continuous documented history than its counterparts on the left, and the contemporary record of governing failures is correspondingly skewed. The result, on both sides, was political coalitions whose internal coherence increasingly depended on shared opposition to the other side rather than shared governing priorities.
That shift changes how political coalitions maintain cohesion. Opposition politics lowers the amount of internal agreement required to sustain a coalition electorally. Parties can remain unified so long as resisting the opposing side remains the dominant shared priority. Governing requires something different. Coalitions must establish priorities, sustain compromises, and make trade-offs among factions whose interests diverge once governing decisions carry real consequences.
The result is a growing gap between electoral cohesion and governing coherence.
Both parties have demonstrated this pattern in recent years, in mirror image. In 2017, Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the presidency after campaigning for seven years on repealing the Affordable Care Act. They could not pass a replacement. The factions that had united against the law could not agree on what should replace it once governing required them to choose.
Four years later, Democrats held unified control and campaigned on a Build Back Better agenda whose broader social-spending elements collapsed inside their own coalition. A narrower piece survived as the Inflation Reduction Act. The factions held together to win the election. They could not hold together to legislate the full agenda.
Those failures do not necessarily prevent parties from winning the next election. Opposition politics can sustain electoral cohesion even as governing continuity weakens.
That dynamic shapes how government functions. Congress struggles to sustain durable bipartisan governing agreements on long-term issues. Executive authority expands as legislative compromise weakens. Elections reward coalition breadth. Governing requires coalition discipline. Administrations rely on executive action because stable legislative coalitions capable of sustaining long-term policy settlements become harder to assemble and maintain.
Donald Trump did not create these pressures, but his rise accelerated many of them. His political success demonstrated how powerfully opposition politics and anti-establishment sentiment could reorganize coalition behavior inside one of America's two major parties. Opposition to Trump simultaneously became a major unifying force inside the Democratic coalition, helping hold together groups whose internal disagreements became more visible once governing responsibilities returned.
The problem emerges when political coalitions can still win elections but no longer sustain durable governing agreement across administrations.
A political system can produce winning coalitions and failing governments at the same time. That is increasingly what American politics looks like.
The next essay turns to what coalition fragility costs when grids, infrastructure, and defense planning all require horizons longer than any single administration.
Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and writes The Stability Brief.Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
black and white love print crew neck shirt
Photo by Cyrus Crossan on Unsplash
The Fragile Promise of the Ballot
May 31, 2026
Recent Supreme Court decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee were not just redefinitions of election law; they marked a critical shift away from the federal government’s duty to ensure equal ballot access—a duty fundamental to democracy.
The consequences were swift and broad. Within hours, Shelby County, Texas, imposed strict voter ID rules that federal officials had previously blocked under the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions. Soon after, North Carolina reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Across parts of Alabama, Georgia, and other Southern states, polling places closed or moved, often in communities with large Black populations. What once required federal review could now proceed quickly.
Meanwhile, supporters argue these rulings protect election integrity and return constitutional authority to states. The Court’s conservative majority contends portions of the Voting Rights Act reflect an earlier era and place outdated burdens on local governments. From this perspective, current conditions do not justify federal oversight.
Nevertheless, the evidence for widespread voter fraud remains negligible, while these laws impose uneven burdens on voters. Elderly, rural, student, and disproportionately Black and Latino communities still face the longest lines, fewest polling places, and greatest bureaucratic obstacles. The issue is no longer whether discrimination precisely mirrors the past, but whether the law recognizes it when it takes more sophisticated administrative forms.
The significance of these decisions lies not only in their immediate effects but also in what they reveal: The Supreme Court is narrowing the national commitment to protecting democratic participation. Where the Voting Rights Act once embodied active federal defense of democracy, the Court now treats voting inequities as isolated technicalities, underestimating their systemic impact.
This shift was particularly evident when Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was effectively dismantled in Shelby County. I am old enough to remember the national optimism surrounding America’s supposed racial progress. At that time, many declared the country had moved beyond the conditions that made federal oversight necessary. Yet history moved faster than that narrative. Almost immediately, legislatures introduced new voting restrictions, revised district maps, and narrowed pathways to participation.
What emerged was not the overt disenfranchisement of the Jim Crow era but a strategic transformation: democracy increasingly shaped through procedure and administration, not force or explicit exclusion. Today’s voter suppression manifests through policy and design, quietly maintaining barriers and undermining the ideal of equal participation.
History suggests such moments of regression are never permanent. From Dred Scott v. Sandford to the era of poll taxes and literacy tests, institutions have often lagged behind the nation’s democratic aspirations. Progress has depended less on judicial inevitability than on sustained civic pressure from ordinary citizens insisting the Constitution apply to them fully.
That pressure continues. Voting-rights groups stay in courtrooms and statehouses. Grassroots organizers keep registering voters in communities long targeted for exclusion. Citizens still wait in long lines, believing participation matters—even when systems seem designed to exhaust their faith.
The Supreme Court may interpret the law, but it cannot alone answer the central democratic question: Who is entitled to full participation in American public life? That question persists—and history suggests it will always depend on both judicial action and citizens resolutely defending democracy’s unfinished promise against new forms of exclusion.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
Worn american flag with white embroidered stars and red stripes.
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
Veterans Caught in the Justice System Need Support, Not Neglect
May 30, 2026
Roughly 200,000 service members leave the military each year. As a retired brigadier general who spent more than three decades in the U.S. Army, I know that most of them return home stronger from their service with a greater sense of pride and purpose.
But many veterans also carry invisible wounds. Suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or other combat-related trauma, too many fall into the criminal justice system and still need our help.
Nearly one-third of veterans have been arrested and booked into jail at least once, compared to one in five non-veterans. Veterans are now twice as likely as non-veterans to face incarceration, and tens of thousands are currently imprisoned. The suicide rate for veterans is approximately 1.5 times higher than the rate among the general population, and it’s especially high for veterans leaving incarceration.
Unfortunately, the way we currently manage struggling veterans undermines recruitment and jeopardizes the health and safety of our veterans, their families, their communities, and, ultimately, our country.
The federal government recognizes this problem. In April, the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs held a bipartisan hearing exploring how to help justice-involved veterans.
I was there testifying on behalf of the Council on Criminal Justice Veterans Justice Commission. Launched in 2022, the Commission was chaired by former U.S. Defense Secretary and U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel and included former Defense Secretary and White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, as well as other leaders representing veterans, the military, the Veterans Administration, community advocates, and various sectors of the justice system.
Its aim was to examine the extent and nature of veterans’ involvement in the criminal justice system and develop recommendations for evidence-based policy changes that enhance safety, health, and justice for veterans and their families.
I outlined several of those recommendations in my testimony.
To start, we need more support for veterans when they reenter civilian life. Changes must start at the Pentagon by creating a dedicated office to support transition, adopting evidence-based programs to help at-risk service members, and expanding access to VA health benefits.
Next, we need more effective responses when veterans do break the law. That means expanding alternatives to prosecution and incarceration—such as diversion and treatment programs—and doing a better job of identifying veterans who end up in the system.
Finally, we need more resources for veterans during incarceration and when they re-enter their communities. This includes providing VA health care for those behind bars, prioritizing hiring of justice-involved veterans, and removing barriers that make it harder for veterans to access housing and benefits after release.
Beyond the Senate hearing, we’ve seen other encouraging signs that both the federal government and states are prioritizing veterans.
Earlier this year, Congress provided $4 million in the Justice Department budget for a National Center on Veterans Justice, as recommended by the Commission. The Center should act as a hub to improve the success of justice-involved veterans by identifying and replicating best practices nationwide and establishing robust program evaluation so we can invest in what works. If implemented properly, it will revolutionize how the justice system treats the unique cases of our veterans. States are also taking action. Following a Commission recommendation, Nebraska passed a law creating alternative sentencing options for veterans, and similar legislation is pending in several other states.
To be sure, veterans who break the law must be held accountable for their actions. But as a nation, we must also recognize our responsibility for the circumstances of military service that can contribute to criminal behavior. Our response should emphasize restoration, not punishment alone.
It is nothing short of tragic when those who once wore the cloth of our nation now wear the cloth of incarceration. We have a duty to uphold our military’s commitment that no man or woman who served our nation be left behind.
David MacEwen, a retired brigadier general, spent more than 30 years in the U.S. Army, concluding his service as the 59th Adjutant General. He is the director of the Council on Criminal Justice Veterans Justice Commission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.
Getty Images, Spencer Platt
Senate Pushes $72 Billion ICE Funding Boost as Abuse Allegations Mount
May 30, 2026
Washington, D.C. — The Senate is preparing to begin a budget reconciliation process that could direct up to $72 billion in new funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a move that has prompted sharp criticism from civil rights groups who argue the agencies already operate with expanded enforcement powers and minimal oversight.
The proposal isn’t a standard spending bill. It’s a reconciliation package, which allows Republicans to advance it in the Senate with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes normally required to break a filibuster. That procedural choice makes it one of the most direct efforts yet to cement Trump’s immigration agenda without needing Democratic support.
The Latino civic organization Voto Latino is urging lawmakers to reject the proposal, citing a growing list of reported abuses, wrongful detentions, and deaths in custody. They argue the Trump administration has widened ICE and CBP’s enforcement authority without corresponding accountability from Congress, resulting in communities across the country experiencing increased detentions, wrongful deportations, and family separations. Despite billions in additional funding last year, the Senate is now considering tens of billions more, without what advocates describe as meaningful guardrails or reforms.
The organization argues that the agencies’ record under Secretary Markwayne Mullin reflects a pattern of abuse, inadequate medical care, and preventable deaths in custody. “Rewarding that record with a $72 billion blank check will only make it worse,” the group said.
Recent reporting from national and local outlets highlights the breadth of incidents fueling the backlash. The Texas Tribune documented the case of José Contreras Díaz, a longtime DACA recipient who was deported to Honduras while his wife was pregnant, later allowed to return, and then detained again, leaving him uncertain about what comes next. NBC Chicago reported that Kevin Gonzalez, an 18‑year‑old U.S. citizen with terminal cancer, died hours after his detained parents were released so they could say goodbye. In Georgia, WABE reported the death of Denny Adan Gonzalez, the second person to die in ICE custody in the state this year and the 18th nationwide in 2026.
Other cases involve U.S. citizens and military families and have raised concerns about the use of force:
- Brian Jose Morales Garcia, a U.S. citizen born in Denver, was deported to Mexico after a traffic stop despite repeatedly asserting his citizenship (Apr. 25, 2026).
- Deisy Rivera Ortega, the wife of an active-duty U.S. Army sergeant, was detained during a routine immigration appointment in Texas (Apr. 20, 2026).
- Marie‑Thérèse Ross‑Mahé, an 85‑year‑old French widow who married an American G.I., was held in a Louisiana detention center as her family struggled to reach her (Apr. 16, 2026).
- ICE agents smashed a car window to detain Edgar Gomez‑Ramirez in South Jersey (Mar. 30, 2026).
- Zoila Guerra Sandoval, whose daughter’s father died in the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse, is now facing deportation despite being the parent of a U.S. citizen child (Apr. 24, 2026).
Republicans argue the package is needed to restore and expand enforcement funding after Democrats blocked the usual appropriations process. Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to criticize it as an attempt to bypass standard spending rules and broaden ICE authority without sufficient oversight.
Next step is the Senate procedural review. Under reconciliation rules, every provision must have a direct budgetary effect — not simply function as a policy change framed as spending. That gives the Senate parliamentarian significant power over which elements Republicans can keep in the bill.
Voto Latino is calling on Americans, community leaders, and organizations to contact their members of Congress and demand a “no” vote on the reconciliation package. The group argues that Congress should not approve billions more for agencies accused of abuse, wrongful deportations, and family separations without implementing meaningful oversight and accountability measures.
As the reconciliation process moves forward, lawmakers face competing pressures over border security, civil liberties, and federal spending. Advocates warn that without reforms, expanded funding risks deepening the very problems already documented across the country.
Senate Pushes $72 Billion ICE Funding Boost as Abuse Allegations Mount was first published by the Latino News Network and republished with permission.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More