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
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
President Donald Trump.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Trump Explained
Apr 19, 2025
After President Trump brought global economics to the brink of meltdown with his erratic unilateral tariff decrees, Tyler Page and Maggie Haberman reported in the New York Times that Trump told Republicans “I know what the hell I’m doing!” and, after reversing himself, his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said he was acting “instinctively, more than anything else.”
What explains this and other behavior that goes alarmingly beyond what most of his closest supporters expected of him?
Counterintuitively, one of the greatest dangers to which a political leader’s inner circle must pay attention is when the leader experiences significant success. Against the odds, Trump recovered from an electoral loss and a slew of lawsuits to regain the presidency for a second time, with larger margins, and watched the lawsuits disappear as a cloak of immunity wrapped around him. Impressive successes! Two things then occur.
First, the leader takes these favorable outcomes to reinforce any existing sense of specialness, superior acuity, or messianic mission. Increasingly, they tune out the counsel of others and trust their own gut, which has so far proven to be brilliantly right, regardless of mounting evidence to the contrary.
Second, those in his inner circle of confidants and in the near inner circle of elites become cautious about contradicting him. The leader is too successful, has too much power, and is too darn sure of himself. When a leader veers off course, their most intimate followers share culpability for retreating from giving counsel based on good data and judgment. They see that truth-telling is unwelcome and become self-censors, valuing their position and access more than their obligation to be trusted advisors.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The confluence of these two tendencies is a recipe for disaster in governance. The leader is rolling the dice. When they come up 7s or 11s in successive rolls, they become addicted to risk and the rush they get when they beat the odds. They forget that the odds will sooner or later turn against them.
To use a historic case, not because it is analogous, but because it is well known, when Adolph Hitler overruled the cautions of his political and military advisors and took the risks of occupying the Rhineland, marching into Austria, and annexing Czechoslovakia, the successes created a sense of invincibility. This spell continued when he invaded Poland, though the allied forces responded with a declaration of war. His rapid subjugation of Poland, the “low countries” and France reinforced his sense of invincibility. By then, no advisors could stop him when he made the fatal error of invading Russia.
The losers in that case were not just tens of millions of Europeans who forfeited their lives, but the German people themselves, whose country was decimated under the counteroffensives of the Allied forces.
This is a crucial lesson for those who support President Trump. There is no question he has proven to be an exceptional political figure who won the trust of a majority of American voters. They placed their faith in his promise to create a government that would be more responsive to their needs. To do this, he must disrupt the status quo, which, inherently, will produce voluminous objections to his policies. This would still be within the framework of a dynamic political process that may give his supporters something of what they expect.
In contrast, by becoming obsessively self-referential, Mr. Trump, like highly successful leaders before him, risks nullifying whatever benefit he might bring to his supporters. No human being on earth, no matter how messianic they claim their mission, can be trusted to single-handedly control the vast powers of the US presidency without seeking a range of viewpoints to inform their decision making. The effect of their blind spots, personal peccadillos, or biases is magnified tenfold and threatens to nullify the value they may otherwise bring to the office.
In my book, To Stop a Tyrant, I discuss three types of followers: conformists, colluders, and courageous followers. If those who most intimately surround the political leader are conformists (sycophants) or colluders (who amplify his worst impulses), the political leader will continue to become more extreme, exposing themselves and their country to far greater risk. The antidote is courageous followers who will stand up and report the truth as they see it, regardless of the displeasure this evokes in the leader. It is courageous followers who, in fact, are the most loyal to the leader.
In the recent event, when the US Treasury bond market began to behave erratically, his advisors finally found their voice as courageous followers and got through to the President. He suspended the market-shaking tariffs for ninety days. Let’s hope they do not wait quite as long to effectively intervene when “his instincts’ next tell him to play chicken with the world economy or its democratic institutions. And neither should you wait to speak up wherever you can make your voice heard.
Ira Chaleff is the author of To Stop a Tyrant: The Power of Political Followers to Make or Brake a Toxic Leader and The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and For Our Leaders.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Getty Images, boonchai wedmakawand
Congress Bill Spotlight: Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act
Apr 18, 2025
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about but that often don't get the right news coverage.
Trump reportedly tips his Mar-a-Lago groundskeepers with $100 bills. What if his own face appeared on them?
What The Bills Do
Two different proposals in the House would put Trump’s face on money.
The Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act would create a new $250 bill, tied to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence signing in 2026. It was introduced on February 27 by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC2).
The Golden Age Act would replace Benjamin Franklin with Trump on the $100 bill starting in 2029. (All existing $100 bills depicting Franklin would still be legal but the government just wouldn’t print any more.) It was introduced on March 3 by Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX26).
Neither legislation appears to have a Senate companion introduced yet.
Context
Seven prominent Americans are depicted on the main U.S. bills: George Washington on the $1, Thomas Jefferson on the $2, Abraham Lincoln on the $5, Alexander Hamilton on the $10, Andrew Jackson on the $20, Ulysses S. Grant on the $50, and Benjamin Franklin on the $100.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The last personnel change to one of those bills was in 1928 when Jackson replaced Grover Cleveland on the $20.
Since then, Congress has named or renamed various things after living ex-presidents, like renaming the D.C. area’s Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan Airport in 1998 or renaming the EPA’s headquarters as the Bill Clinton Federal Building in 2013. But none of those were renamed after incumbent presidents.
In this digital age of credit cards, plus apps and websites like Venmo, PayPal, and CashApp, cash transactions represent a sharply declining share of monetary transactions: plunging from 31% of payments in 2016 to 18% in 2022.
What Supporters Say
Supporters argue that Trump deserves his spot alongside the seven prominent Americans, five of them former presidents, currently appearing on paper money.
“President Trump is working tirelessly to fight inflation and help American families. This achievement is deserving of currency recognition, which is why I am grateful to introduce this legislation,” Rep. Wilson said in a press release. “The most valuable bill for the most valuable president!”
“President Trump… took a bullet for this country and is now working overtime to secure our border, fix our uneven trade relationship with the rest of the world, make America energy independent again, and put America first by ending useless foreign aid,” Rep. Gill said in a press release. “Featuring him on the $100 bill is a small way to honor all he will accomplish these next four years.”
What Opponents Say
Obviously, Democrats oppose putting Trump’s face on money at all. But other opponents counter with alternative points.
For example, some say the U.S. should eliminate the $100 bill entirely. “Let’s abolish the $100 bill,” Timothy Noah wrote in the New Republic. “Benjamins are the favorite currency of criminals and almost no one else—and there’s no good reason to go on printing them.”
“Since 1980, the proportion of $100 bills that reside outside the U.S. has risen from 30% to nearly 80%,” Noah added. “The overwhelming majority of those who possess these bills are criminals of one kind or another who want to stash their money overseas.”
(Presumably, the same argument could be used against creating a $250 bill too.)
Another argument: an 1866 law prevents people from appearing on U.S. money while they’re still alive. Congress passed the law after Spencer Clark, superintendent of the National Currency Bureau, put his own face on the five-cent note.
The $250 legislation would also repeal that 1866 law, though the $100 legislation would not.
Odds of Passage
The $250 legislation has attracted three Republican cosponsors. It awaits a potential vote in the House Financial Services Committee, controlled by Republicans.
The $100 legislation has also attracted three Republican cosponsors—though, interestingly, completely distinct from the three who cosponsored the $250 legislation. It also awaits a potential vote in the House Financial Services Committee.
Perhaps a more likely outcome: the Treasury Department may just unilaterally make such a decision, rather than Congress.
In 2016, President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced Harriet Tubman would replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Due to a combination of slow-walking and bureaucratic delays by the Trump administration in the production design process, though, the Tubman bill isn’t expected to debut until around 2030.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: adding Donald Trump’s face to Mount Rushmore
Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Repealing Trump’s National Energy Emergency
Congress Bill Spotlight: Smithsonian Italian American Museum
Congress Bill Spotlight: Impeaching Judges Who Rule Against Trump
Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Fights for Its Own Benefits as America's Priorities Wait in Line
Apr 15, 2025
Congress: Assemble!
In recent weeks, as the new administration rolls out its shock and awe beginning to President Trump's second term, many have been asking: where is the co-equal legislative branch of government? Depending on your viewpoint, you may be wondering why Congress isn't doing more to push Trump's agenda, or conversely to fight back against the executive's unconstitutional power grab. But fear not! Congress is back, baby. Finally, an issue which gets them all in a lather, with some dramatic power moves. Is it the meltdown on the stock market and the burgeoning trade war with ... pretty much everyone? Is it the 'invasion' at the southern border? The price of eggs? Err... no, none of that. It's about their own voting processes.
At the center of this controversy is House Resolution 23, which has created an unexpected alliance between Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) while simultaneously causing a rift within the Republican Party.
The resolution, if passed, would allow members of Congress who have given birth or whose spouses have given birth to designate another member to vote on their behalf for up to 12 weeks - a proxy vote. This seemingly straightforward accommodation for new parents has become a flashpoint that recently brought House business to a complete halt.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Procedural Mayhem
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was implacably opposed - he feels that proxy voting in any form raises constitutional concerns and could lead to a "slippery slope." (For more on the fascinating constitutional implications, see this article from 2020). Yet the issue garnered enough support that Luna successfully executed a 'discharge petition', gathering signatures from more than 200 Democrats and 11 Republicans to force floor consideration of the resolution.
The normal process for a bill to come to the floor is for the Rules Committee to set the time and amendment parameters for the bill. A discharge petition 'discharges' the relevant committee from further consideration of the legislation, and therefore allows a floor vote against the recommendation of the committee.
The situation became even more contentious when House leadership attempted to block consideration of the resolution by using a debate and vote on other bills that Republicans support to stop the resolution from being brought to the floor for a vote, leading to a remarkable rebellion where eight Republicans joined Luna in rebelling and taking down the procedural vote. This internal fracture effectively paralyzed the House, preventing it from addressing other pressing legislative priorities. The Speaker was forced to shut the House down to prevent Luna and Pettersen using the discharge petition to force a vote (which they would have won - the fact they managed to get the votes for the petition meant they had the votes to win).
After days of deadlock, a compromise has emerged. Speaker Johnson and Rep. Luna announced on April 6 that they've reached an agreement to formalize "vote pairing" – an existing but rarely used procedure dating back to the 1800s. This arrangement allows an absent member to coordinate with a colleague voting the opposite way who agrees to abstain, effectively canceling out the absence.
"Speaker Johnson and I have reached an agreement and are formalizing a procedure called 'live/dead pairing' — dating back to the 1800s — for the entire conference to use when unable to physically be present to vote: new parents, bereaved, emergencies," Luna explained in a statement on social media.
Fiddling While Rome Burns, or Crucial Modernization?
While resolved, at least for now, this controversy raises important questions about congressional modernization and work-life balance in America's highest legislative bodies. For supporters, the resolution represents a necessary step toward making Congress more accessible to younger members and those starting families. As Luna pointedly argued, "If we truly want a younger Congress … these are the changes that need to happen."
The timing of this debate is particularly significant as it has delayed consideration of the budget resolution recently passed by the Senate, which provides a framework for President Trump's legislative agenda on tax cuts, border, and energy policy. Some observers question whether this procedural battle over proxy voting deserves to take precedence over these substantive policy matters.
For policy wonks and lovers of procedural minutiae (and who doesn't love an obscure legislative rule being used to cause shenanigans?) this is all good stuff. For many Americans watching from the sidelines, however, the spectacle of Congress grinding to a halt over an issue that primarily affects lawmakers themselves may reinforce a growing sense of disconnection between elected officials and their constituents. At a time when millions of Americans face pressing concerns about inflation, healthcare costs, housing affordability, and global instability, the House's preoccupation with its own internal procedures can appear self-serving and out of touch.
This perception problem is particularly acute given that congressional approval ratings have hovered near historic lows in recent years. When the legislative body responsible for addressing national crises suspends its operations to debate workplace accommodations for its own members – accommodations that many ordinary Americans lack in their own jobs – it potentially widens the trust gap between citizens and their government. Critics argue that this internal focus comes at the expense of addressing legislation that would have tangible impacts on everyday Americans' lives.
However, others view the resolution as addressing a fundamental issue of representation. The current system effectively forces new parents, particularly mothers recovering from childbirth, to choose between their constitutional duty to represent their constituents and their personal responsibilities as parents. This dilemma doesn't just affect the individual members but potentially disenfranchises the hundreds of thousands of Americans they represent.
Working Parents
The proxy voting debate also reflects broader societal conversations about parental leave and accommodations for working parents. While many private sector employees have access to some form of parental leave, members of Congress have traditionally been expected to be physically present for votes regardless of personal circumstances.
Johnson has indicated that beyond the vote pairing agreement, he is "still looking at increasing accessibility for young mothers in the Capitol," including the possibility of "a room for nursing mothers and potentially allowing mothers of young children to use their official funds to travel between their home districts and Washington." These additional accommodations could help address some concerns without fundamentally changing voting procedures.
It's worth noting that this is not the first time Congress has grappled with proxy voting. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the House temporarily implemented a proxy voting system, which some Republicans, including Johnson, strongly opposed on constitutional grounds. This history adds another layer of complexity to the current debate.
The resolution and subsequent compromise highlight an ongoing tension in American politics between tradition and modernization, between adhering to established procedures and adapting to changing social norms. As our elected officials continue to reflect the diversity of American society, questions about how institutional practices accommodate different life circumstances will likely persist.
Whether the vote pairing compromise will fully resolve the issue remains to be seen, particularly since any Democrat who signed the discharge petition could still theoretically call it up for a vote. However, if Republicans abide by the agreement and decline to support the resolution on the floor, the immediate crisis appears to be resolved.
The fact that this issue has commanded such attention—even receiving public support from President Trump—suggests that questions about work-life balance and institutional accommodation are becoming increasingly important in American political life, even as other pressing national issues await congressional action.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.
IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page.
IssueVoter Bill of the Month (April 2025): Congress Fights for Its Own Benefits as America's Priorities Wait in Line was first published by BillTrack50 and was republished with permission.
Cover Photo: provided by BillTrack50
Keep ReadingShow less
a large white building with a flag on top of it
Photo by Nils Huenerfuerst on Unsplash
Beginning To Explore the Pro-Democracy Arena
Apr 10, 2025
The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engaging diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
Over the last two months, I’ve been privileged to speak with a diversity of stakeholders who work within the pro-democracy ecosystem. These leaders are focused on improving the democratic fabric of this country through tackling issues like structural reform, bridge building, organizing the ecosystem, and place-based work. I’ll continue this series with the Fulcrum over the next few months, and welcome your feedback (and additional potential individuals to interview).
In a moment in which the pro-democracy space is necessarily struggling to define its contours and strategy, I’ve found these interviews to be an important way to wrestle with the challenges and elevate perspectives. I am grateful for the candor of the interviewees. Five conversations into the series, I wanted to highlight some of the biggest takeaways from the conversations to date.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Perhaps most importantly, the interviews demonstrate that there is no one clear road forward. This truth is probably self-evident but worth emphasizing: this series (nor any initiative) will lead to a clear roadmap that effectively charts a path forward to revitalizing American democracy. This is precisely why these conversations are so necessary right now- to grapple with the tensions that have emerged, rather than to solve for them.
Multiple tensions have emerged in the interviews so far, which, from experience and other conversations, are similar strains prevalent right now throughout the broader pro-democracy ecosystem. I’ve summarized key questions from each interview, which might be useful for those in the ecosystem to reflect upon in their own work.
What is the balance between short-term and long-term work? Julia Roig's interview hammered home this point as she grappled with the balance between lowering the heat (combating polarization) and raising the heat (more resistance-type work). In a moment when many democratic norms seem to be at existential risk, there is an obvious need to focus on defense. Some argue that there is no utility in focusing on long-term visioning if democracy does not survive past the present.
But so many Americans no longer believe that democracy works. This reality will not change with any election result but rather because of long-term rebuilding and re-envisioning. There is simply no luxury for the field to choose to work on the short-term or the long-term—they must be intertwined.
Who cares about democracy? Reverend F Willis Johnson expressed concerns that the pro-democracy community is not effectively reaching out to people, as both organizations and the languages they use are becoming too elitist and top-heavy.
Whereas many organizations are producing talking points and thinking about ideals like closing civic space and a rising oligarchy, it’s not clear how much of that language resonates with the vast majority of Americans. We need to get out of our pro-democracy bubbles. The answer to this problem cannot be simply another narrative project or more polling: it must be interacting with individuals who do not actively profess to be part of the pro-democracy field.
What are we willing to give up to build a bigger democracy tent? It is critical that the pro-democracy field ensures that individuals from diverse ideological stripes feel comfortable being part of the overall effort. Stephen Richer, the Republican former Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, warned about the challenge of not equating support for democracy with support for a progressive policy agenda.
In order to truly build a broader pro-democracy tent, it is necessary to put aside ideological differences for broader democratic principles. It is one thing to say this- it’s another for progressives, for example, to welcome in conservatives who may differ on fundamental issues like abortion, health care, or tax policy, but are genuinely worried about the direction of the country. The pro-democracy field cannot be a code name for progressivism, and there’s work to be done to truly understand what this means from a tactical perspective.
How can we convince people to reform electoral structures? Many structural reformists have emphasized the need to change how elections and governance work so that democracy can better represent the will of the people. This effort, as Andy Moore described, has fallen short in recent years, partially because the presented reforms have not resonated with a frustrated public that is inherently skeptical of elite-driven solutions.
It doesn’t seem prudent to completely give up on structural reform, although I wonder if some funders will. But reformists would do well to avoid the silver-bullet mentality that sometimes has come to define the structural reform ethos (if only we had ranked choice voting or proportional representation, democracy would work!). This work, like so much of the democracy space, will require base-building over a long period of time rather than episodic elections.
How do we work alongside funders? Like in any field, there is natural frustration towards funders who practitioners sometimes feel are prioritizing the wrong parts of the work. Richard Young noted that funders can sometimes focus on quick wins and movements rather than the long, membership-driven, place-based work necessary for a thriving democracy.
My personal sense is that funders are grappling with this moment just like everyone else (and I will plan to interview funders as part of the next phase of this series). It seems there is a need to engage them deeply, and for funders to humbly learn alongside practitioners at an existential moment for the pro-democracy sector.
I’d be curious if these same lessons resonate with others. My hope is that we can grapple with these tensions, looking to move forward productively rather than answer the questions declaratively.
We invite you to watch Scott's interviews on our YouTube channel by clicking HERE.
Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More