Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.


The roots of many contemporary political problems can be found in the Constitution. Its institutions are creaky, and rights that are new or threatened need anchors.

But the roots of these problems also extend to the people and principles beneath the structures and rights secured by the Constitution. Sure, changing term lengths across all three branches of government or advancing voting rights are worthy amendment topics. It is critical, however, that we re-embrace the fundamental role we citizens have.

This is why “We the People” — the heart of the Constitution — matter most. We are still the ones who elect our representatives, senators (after the 17th Amendment in 1913) and the president (sort of, via the Electoral College).

The framers weren’t flawless, but they deserve credit for creating a government that confronts how bad humans can be. The separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism may be frustrating, but they prevent power from being consolidated and more easily abused, a risk the framers knew would be perpetual.

Paradoxically, they also understood that our public officials must be good — virtuous, as they asserted repeatedly — if our democracy is to work as intended. Yet we citizens remain the only ones who can put malignant or malicious perpetrators into office. Can we reduce this complementary risk? Yes, with these four steps:

First, vote. But don’t stop there. A constitutional democracy asks more of us, particularly in the 21st century, when performative partisanship, misinformation and disinformation prevail. Foreign policy expert Richard Haass called our deteriorating civic life the greatest security threat facing the nation. In “ The Bill of Obligations,” he described 10 “habits of good citizens” that each of us can do to strengthen America, including staying informed, getting involved, valuing norms and supporting civics education. Our “[c]ollective identity” he said, “is a matter of teaching, not biology.”

Second, dial back the animosity toward those with whom we disagree. It’s an old saw, and easier said than done, but disagreeing agreeably is as necessary as it is laudable. We need to remind our representatives to rediscover this lost art, too. That means changing their incentives from appealing to a narrow, primary electoral base while restoring their constitutional role of bargaining, negotiation and compromise. Yuval Levin clarifies in his latest book, “ American Covenant,” how a diverse nation must use this fundamental, Madisonian approach to govern itself. He also emphasizes that national unity is less about what we think and more about what we do.

Third, refresh our appreciation for the full range of principles expressed in our constitutional structure, which might best be accomplished by reading “ The Pursuit of Happiness ” by the National Constitution Center’s president, Jeffrey Rosen. The philosophies and values beneath the service, citizenship and representation that shaped the founders’ thinking when they crafted the Constitution are considered classical for a reason; in Rosen’s hands, they come alive. He vibrantly shows how the founders tapped the work of great thinkers, from Cicero and Epictetus to Hume and Locke, to conceive the nation’s constitutional design. Their perspectives on restraint, moderation, humility and other traits are surprisingly resonant for re-anchoring our public morals today.

Lastly, recognize that we are all reformers, whether active or passive. As the artist Georgia O’Keeffe said in 1981, reflecting on moving to and living in northwestern New Mexico, “When you start making a home, it is difficult to stop changing it, imagining it different.”

It may be trite to equate our government or nation with a residence, and odder still to do so by citing an introverted artist. But few analogies work better. We are individually and collectively building and living in a home called America. We may disagree about small matters, say a paint color, or large matters, perhaps a renovation. But we need to agree about the largest matters, such as fixing leaky roofs, broken door hinges and cracked foundations.

And then there is how we treat those residing in the other rooms. Suggesting that “We the People” need a civic reboot is not a slur against any or all of us; it simply places us where we belong — at the center of our country, our government, our home — and evokes our responsibility of “imagining it different.” The cyclical waves or spirals that bring change don’t happen unless we use our imagination.

So keep at it, America. O’Keeffe captured the essence of human striving to better our world. Perhaps more than her artwork, her civic wisdom can inspire us all.


Read More

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.

Photo by Martha Stewart

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.

In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less