In honor of today’s national holiday, The Fulcrum shares this video on the origins of Veterans Day.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The AI Race We Need: For a Better Future, Not Against Another Nation
May 23, 2025
The AI race that warrants the lion’s share of our attention and resources is not the one with China. Both superpowers should stop hurriedly pursuing AI advances for the sake of “beating” the other. We’ve seen such a race before. Both participants lose. The real race is against an unacceptable status quo: declining lifespans, increasing income inequality, intensifying climate chaos, and destabilizing politics. That status quo will drag on, absent the sorts of drastic improvements AI can bring about. AI may not solve those problems but it may accelerate our ability to improve collective well-being. That’s a race worth winning.
Geopolitical races have long sapped the U.S. of realizing a better future sooner. The U.S. squandered scarce resources and diverted talented staff to close the alleged missile gap with the USSR. President Dwight D. Eisenhower rightfully noted, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” He realized that every race comes at an immense cost. In this case, the country was “spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
President John F. Kennedy failed to heed the guidance of his predecessor. He initiated yet another geopolitical contest by publicly challenging the USSR to a space race. Privately, he too knew that such a race required substantial trade-offs. Before Sputnik,Kennedy scoffed at spending precious funds on space endeavors. Following the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Kennedy reversed course. In his search for a political win, he found space. The rest, of course, is history. It’s true that the nation’s pursuit of the moon generated significant direct and indirect benefits. What’s unknowable, though, iswhat benefits could have been realized if Kennedy pursued his original science agenda: large-scale desalination of seawater. That bold endeavor would have also created spin-off improvements in related fields.
Decades from now, the true “winner” of the AI race will be the country that competes in the only race that really matters—tackling the most pressing economic, social, and political problems. The country that wins that race will have a richer, healthier, and more resilient population. That country will endure when crises unfold. Others will crumble.
AI development and deployment involve finite resources. The chips, energy, and expertise that go into creating leading AI models are in short supply. Chips accumulated by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and other massive AI labs to train the next frontier model are chips not being used to address more socially useful ends. Likewise, an AI expert working on a new AI-driven missile system is an expert not working on how AI can solve problems that have long been put on the back burner in the name of winning the geopolitical race of the moment.
Imagine the good that could come about if instead of prioritizing the pursuit of an unreachable AI frontier, we turned already impressive models toward the problems that will shape our long-term communal success. Early signs suggest that a pivot to this race would immediately improve the status quo. First, consider the potential for rapid improvements in health brought about by better, more affordable drugs. According to the Boston Consulting Group, AI-based discoveries or designs have spurred 67 clinical trials of new drugs. AstraZeneca reported that AI had cut its drug discovery process from years to months.
Second, consider the possibility of providing every student with personalized tutoring—setting us on a path to again become the most educated and productive workforce the world over.AI programs deployed in Bhutan helped students learn math skills in a fraction of the time when compared to classmates who received traditional math instruction. Closer to home, Khanmigo—an AI platform designed by the Khan Academy—is giving students personalized lessons in 266 school districts across the United States.
Third, and finally, consider a world in which traffic fatalities were halved thanks to the broader adoption of autonomous vehicles. Autonomous Vehicle (AV) companies have leveraged AI to make rapid advances in the ability of their vehicles to drive in all conditions. Further focus on these efforts may finally make AVs the majority of cars on the road and, as a result, save thousands of lives.
To redirect our AI race toward societal benefit, we need concrete policy changes. Federal research funding should prioritize AI applications targeting our most pressing challenges—healthcare access, energy development, and educational opportunities. Complementing this approach, tax incentives could reward companies that deploy AI for measurable social impact rather than pure market dominance. Additionally, public-private partnerships, similar to the one between Texas A&M and NVIDIA involving the creation of a high-performance supercomputer, could create innovation hubs focused specifically on using AI to solve regional problems, from drought management in the Southwest to infrastructure resilience on the coasts.
The choice before us is clear: we can continue the myopic pursuit of AI superiority for its own sake, or we can choose the wiser race—one toward a more innovative and prosperous future. History will not judge us by which nation first reached some arbitrary artificial intelligence threshold but by how we wielded this transformative technology to solve problems that have plagued humanity for generations. By redirecting our finite resources—chips, energy, and human ingenuity—toward these challenges, we can ensure that the true winners of the AI revolution will be all of us, not merely one flag or another. That is a victory worth pursuing with the full measure of our national commitment and creativity.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
Keep ReadingShow less
People standing along each other, arm in arm.
Getty Images, Mindful Media
The Power of Community Organization in Calling for Local Investments
May 23, 2025
Door after door, the response was the same: “Why would I vote? It’s not going to change anything.” Even in Grand Rapids, one of the key swing counties of the 2024 election, people felt despondent—powerless. But three months later, those neighbors had organized with hundreds of others in the city to win $20 million for their community—and that sense of powerlessness was changing.
We’ve swallowed a myth that the only change worth pursuing is national, forgetting it was historically robust networks of local clubs, organizations, and associations that made national change possible in the first place. This is what good organizing can do, and we need more of it.
The community members in Grand Rapids didn’t do it with a 30-second sales pitch to garner votes for election day. Instead, they simply asked: “What are the pressures facing your family?”
Everyone had a story—deaths due to a lack of traffic safety, a public water main failure that flooded dozens of homes, and rising housing prices. At the heart of each was a feeling that wealthy interests kept pouring the city’s resources into beautifying the downtown while ignoring the needs of everyday people.
Canvassers were trained not to offer solutions but to issue a challenge: “What do you want to do about that?” Neighbors who expressed an interest in taking action were invited to begin organizing with others who had similar concerns.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The organization behind this was Together West Michigan (TWM), a coalition of faith communities, schools, and neighborhood groups and an affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation (the oldest and largest community organizing network in the U.S.). Their goal was to put the needs of everyday people at the center of the coming elections.
In this process, leaders discovered plans for a major development in the heart of downtown: a request for $565 million in taxpayer subsidies to build luxury condominiums, a hotel, and an office building. For residents, it was more of the same—gilding the lily while people fighting to keep their homes and streets safe were patted on the head and told it would all trickle down. One leader called the proposal “a slap in the face.”
Jumping into action, veteran TWM leaders worked with neighbors to meet with City Commissioners who would be voting on the deal. Residents made clear that, while they did not oppose development, they did oppose a deal that took half a billion dollars in taxpayer money in exchange for minuscule investments in affordable housing and a token promise to “improve the downtown”.
When the developers refused to budge, Together West Michigan turned up the heat. 140 of its leaders held a press conference in front of City Hall, calling for a “public benefit that matches the public’s investment,” before packing the Commission Chambers to deliver testimony.
A month later, after tough negotiations, their work paid off. In front of another packed audience, the City Commission approved an amended proposal that required developers to invest an additional $20 million in local women and minority-owned businesses in exchange for the public subsidy.
But that wasn’t the only victory. In an election year where voter turnout dropped drastically across Michigan, in the precincts where TWM organized, turnout decline was drastically slowed. People voted when they saw the impact on their own lives.
At a time when it feels harder than ever to rein in the abuses of those in power, stories like this give us a clear message of hope and a model for future action. They remind us that when communities organize strategically, people really can—and often do—win.
To be sure, the evidence of Grand Rapids is anecdotal. But it’s not unique. The civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, the 40-hour work week, the abolition of child labor, and other pivotal victories in American history drew on the same type of hyper-local organizing work grounded in kitchen-table issues.
Today, in living rooms, church basements, union halls, and schools across the country, thousands of Americans carry on this legacy. They meet to identify shared concerns, organize, and take action. Their work has led to billions of dollars in public investment and corporate accountability that has transformed communities.
It’s time we brush aside the failed conviction that our problems will be solved by electing better leaders and instead recommit to investing in citizens. It’s time to return to the foundation of local organizing that networks like the IAF have pioneered and get back to the day-to-day work of developing citizens well versed in the habits of a democratic culture.
Cameron Conner is a professional community organiser currently serving as a Professor of the Practice at the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Primaries, Preferences, and Participation — This Week’s Expand Democracy 5
May 23, 2025
Welcome to the newest edition of The Expand Democracy 5! With Rob Richie’s help (from his journey along the Appalachian Trail!), Eveline Dowling explores: (1) parties and polarization in elections in the UK and Australia; (2) open primaries in the United States; (3) bipartisan views on environmental issues; (4) addressing the voting needs of military families; and (5) this week’s timely links.
In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we intend to publish The Expand Democracy 5 in The Fulcrum each Friday.
If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
Deep Dive - Third Parties, Polarization, and the Systems that Shape Democracy 🎬
Australia and the UK recently delivered strikingly different lessons on how electoral systems handle disruption from outside the two-party mold. Both saw surges from non-major parties, but only one appears structurally ready for it. Although the United States has yet to experience such a surge, rising levels of unaffiliated voters and signs of voter disenchantment with their choices make it wise for policymakers to prepare for what may be coming.
Australia’s electoral system welcomes competition
Australia’s recent federal election results offer a compelling case study in how ranked choice voting (RCV), used in the House of Representatives via instant runoff, can empower political independents and elevate voter choice. For decades, Australia has had large numbers of candidates without concerns with “spoilers.” The major parties have generally won nearly all the seats, partly because they had to evolve their positions to compete for the support of minor parties as that support grew – that is, they have been “big tents.” (Its less powerful Senate has proportional representation, contrasting with the situation in which generally no party wins a majority of seats on its own own).
At the same time, RCV has started to makepreviously assumed “safe seats” competitive. In 2022, several high-profile “teal independents” (mostly professional women campaigning on climate action, political integrity, and gender equality)unseated incumbents from the center-right Liberal Party in affluent urban districts. In fact, the vote for independents increased from5.3% in 2022 to more than 7% this year. However, the shifting tides create a fascinating dynamic. Key wins include:
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
- Allegra Spender in Wentworth (Sydney)
- Monique Ryan in Kooyong (Melbourne), defeating then Treasurer Josh Frydenberg
- Zali Steggall retained her seat in Warringah (Sydney)
- Sophie Scamps in Mackellar (Sydney)
These victories resulted from RCV’s ability to secure majority support without tactical voting. Many independents won after trailing in first-choice votes, gaining vital second and third-choice rankings from Greens and Labor voters. In 2025, the teals largely maintained their position but made few new gains as major parties are learning how to compete for their votes.
The results show how an electoral system designed to reflect true voter preferences in each district can hold traditional party power accountable and open the door to new, community-backed leadership. In sum, RCV ensures that even when voters turn away from major parties, as they did by electing several “teal independents” and Greens to Parliament, votes aren’t “wasted”, and the major parties are encouraged to evolve. Candidates must earn a majority through preference flows, meaning major parties must adapt their platforms to build broader coalitions. The result is a dynamic yet stable democracy, where diverse voices have influence, but extremist parties struggle to leapfrog into power.
[A crowd of teals at a rally last month. Source: Asanka Ratnayake / Getty Images]
UK: When polarization meets FPTP
While Australia's RCV system has facilitated the rise of independents by allowing voters to rank preferences, the UK's recent elections underscore the constraints of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Last year, the Labour Party won nearly two-thirds of seats with only33.7% of the vote - even as five parties earned double-digit support nationally, and 13 parties won at least one seat. Hundreds of seats were won with far less than half the vote.
This month, Reform UK, a right-wing populist party led by Nigel Farage, secured itsfifth parliamentary seat in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election,earning 38% to replace a Labour MP. Despite garnering over14.3% of the national vote in the 2024 general election, Reform UK obtained only five seats, highlighting the disproportionality inherent in FPTP.
This disparity has intensified calls for electoral reform in the UK. Like other leaders of the smaller parties, Farage has advocated for a transition to aproportional representation system, But while the simple plurality system often marginalizes smaller parties, Labour’s landslide win with 33% shows that a much more extreme Party like Reform UK could seize power in a system that is vulnerable to populist backlash and declining legitimacy when growing segments of the electorate feel unheard.
[Nigel Farage, Reform UK leader and new MP for Clacton. Source: The Telegraph]
What does this mean for the US?
The contrast between Australia's RCV and the UK's plurality systems illustrates how electoral frameworks can significantly influence political outcomes and representation. As discussions around electoral reform continue, examining international models like RCV offers valuable insights into creating a more representative democratic process.
These contrasting case studies offer a glimpse into two possible futures. In Australia, a robust electoral design helps absorb political change without breaking the system. In the UK, electoral rigidity risks intensifying division. With increasing third-party sentiment in the US, where amajority of voters identify as independents (51%) according to Gallup, we must question our political system's readiness.
RCV, now spreading in US cities and states, may offer a democratic pressure valve. Australia shows it can work, and the UK warns about what happens when change is blocked. Which path will we choose?
Resources:
- An introductory and informative video on how RCV operates from Rank the Vote
- FairVote discusses the effects that RCV has on representation and polarization in Australia
Open Primaries in the US
The possible fragmentation of plurality voting in the United Kingdom may not appear imminent in the United States; however, indications are evident through the significant decline in the number of voters registering with the major parties. This trend is closely tied to discussions on how to ensure that these voters feel connected to politics. Allowing independent voters to participate in primaries gives them an opportunity to cast meaningful votes and become more invested in their choices during the general election.
In the current U.S. political landscape, characterized by heightened polarization and agrowing number of independent voters, the structure of primary elections plays a pivotal role in shaping democratic representation. Recent analyses indicate that open and nonpartisan primariescan lead to higher voter turnout and a more representative electorate compared to closed primaries.
Joshua Ferrer's 2024 paper, The Effect of Partisan Primaries on Turnout and Representation, utilizes a comprehensive dataset to assess how opening primaries to unaffiliated voters impacts voter turnout and the representativeness of the electorate. The study employs a difference-in-differences design, analyzing nearly a decade of nationwide voter file data alongside original panel data on state primary rules. This methodological approach allows for a robust examination of the causal effects of primary participation rules on electoral outcomes. Results show that these reforms lead to a more demographically representative electorate, particularly enhancing participation among unaffiliated voters and communities of color.
In addition, Ferrer demonstrates that states implementing open primaries experience a five percentage point increase in voter turnout. This supports research from Unite America indicating that open primaries may result in higher participation. States with nonpartisan primaries, such as Alaska and Washington, have observed significant increases in primary turnout, with rates of 37% and 35%, respectively, compared to the national average of 21%. This research provides empirical support for the argument that open primary systems canmitigate disparities in political participation and promote a more inclusive democratic process.
As the U.S. nears the 2026 midterms, the conversation surrounding primary election reforms is intensifying, particularly regarding the advantages of open primaries in promoting a more inclusive and representative democracy.
Resources:
- Unite America reports that, amidst various forces driving polarization and dysfunction, the partisan primaries represent the most significant and solvable issue.
- Open Primaries is the premier source for information about primaries in the US and is nationally recognized for expertise in this area.
- RepresentUs offers an excellent primer explaining how open primaries could change American politics.
More in Common Finds Americans Are More United on the Environment Than They Think
A new report from More in Common reveals a surprising truth: Americans across party lines are far more aligned on environmental values than the national debate suggests. The study shows that 88% of Americans, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, support protecting public lands, and 76% support government action on pollution.
Even more striking, 83% believe the U.S. should lead the world in developing clean energy, yet many Americans severely underestimate how widely this belief is shared, especially across the aisle. These misperceptions may be stalling bipartisan progress on climate policy.
While differences remain on the urgency of action, the report highlights a strong shared commitment: 82% of Americans agree we should work together to solve climate change, regardless of its causes. This data indicates that our winner-takes-all electoral system is only partially responsive to public opinion. As not enough voters prioritize environmental issues when choosing candidates, we have ended up with a government that holds positions starkly opposed to public support. It’s a reminder that reframing climate around shared values, like leadership, can be a powerful tool for bridging divides.
[Source: More in Common]
Military Families and Supporting the Voting Needs of Those Who Move Frequently ⚡
When we talk about improving voting access, it’s crucial to consider what the most transitory Americans face - because their challenges often illuminate what’s broken for everyone else. Military families, who frequently relocate across states and even overseas, are a "canary in the coal mine" for the voting system. Their experience navigating voter registration, absentee voting, and participation in local elections shows us where reforms are most urgently needed.
The Military Vote Coalition has emerged as a key voice in spotlighting these barriers and advocating for a set of commonsense, nonpartisan reforms designed to make voting more accessible and secure for service members and their families. Their recommendations aim to make U.S. elections more "military-friendly" and, by extension, more voter-friendly overall. Below are their policy priorities for “military-friendly” voting:
“We affirm that the “gold standard” for the amount of time after Election Day when absentee ballots should still be able to arrive and be counted is 7 days.
We affirm that absentee voters across all states should have access to an online form of ballot tracking where they can check whether their ballot arrived and were counted.
We affirm that absentee voters across all states should be proactively notified if their ballot has been rejected, and have access to a robust ballot-curing process with ample response time.
We affirm that military-issued identification cards should always be included in the list of acceptable IDs for any voter registration, in-person voting, or absentee voting policy that requires photo ID.
We affirm that uniformed service members and dependents should receive information about voter registration at multiple checkpoints throughout their Permanent Change of Station (PCS) process, and in methods informed by user design.
We affirm that the dependents of uniformed service members should have a pathway to poll working, even if they are not locally-registered voters.”
By designing voting systems that work well for military families, we take a step toward building a voting system that works for all Americans, no matter where they live or how often they move.
Timely Links
We close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links:
- Boston City Council Passes Ranked-Choice Voting Proposal: The Boston City Council voted 8-4 to advance a proposal to adopt ranked-choice voting for city elections. The measure now heads to Mayor Michelle Wu, the state legislature, and potentially Boston voters. If fully approved, RCV could be implemented as early as 2028.
- WSJ Op-Ed: Reviving Secure Voting Through a Modernized Public Fund:A recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece argues for revitalizing the outdated Presidential Election Campaign Fund by allowing taxpayers to allocate $3 toward election security and infrastructure improvements. The proposal suggests this approach could enhance trust in elections by providing transparent, voter-directed funding for secure voting systems.
- “You Need Conservatives. Here’s How to Engage Them in Your Mission”: A new piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy argues that the social sector cannot achieve its full potential without meaningfully engaging conservatives, who are often underrepresented and mistrustful of progressive-led initiatives. Written by Pearce Godwin, a conservative with political and philanthropic experience, encourages nonprofits to lead with humility, focus on shared goals, and adapt their language to resonate with conservative values like family, faith, patriotism, and community. The article presents strategies to build trust, co-create solutions, and bridge ideological divides for greater impact.
- “A Long-Term Perspective Shows Major Successes, and Opportunities Ahead”: Despite popular sentiment, the Election Reformers Network compiled a report highlighting the substantial and measurable advancements made in the U.S. democratic infrastructure over the last 25 years. From 2000 to 2025, adoption of key reforms, like independent redistricting commissions, ranked choice voting, no-excuse vote by mail, automatic voter registration, and verifiable paper trails, has expanded across dozens of states, often with bipartisan support. This long-term view highlights that while challenges remain, momentum for improving election fairness, accessibility, and accountability is real.
- "Call for Innovative Election Administration Funding Solutions”:Auburn University, in collaboration with the Election Center, has issued a call for entries to find innovative and practical solutions to address the critical issue of adequate funding for election administration at the local, state, and federal levels across the United States. Participants are invited to submit original proposals that explore new and sustainable methods for financing election administration, considering the unique structure and functions of election offices among government departments and agencies. The challenge encourages creative thinking and collaboration in developing new approaches to election funding.
Keep ReadingShow less
With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) by his side President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Tasos Katopodis
Could Splits Within the GOP Over Economic Policy Hurt the Trump Administration?
May 22, 2025
Republican U.S. Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri is an unusual combo of right and left politics—kind of like an elephant combined with a donkey combined with a polar bear. And, yet, his views may augur the future of the Republican Party.
Many people view the Republican and Democratic parties as ideological monoliths, run by hardcore partisans and implacably positioned against each other. But, in fact, both parties have their internal divisions, influenced by various outside organizations. In the GOP, an intra-party battle is brewing between an economic populist wing with its more pro-labor positions and a traditional libertarian wing with its pro-free market stances.
Recently, Senator Hawley made headlines by calling on the Labor Department to investigate Tyson Foods, the largest meat company in America, after allegations by a whistleblower that it illegally employs child labor. Child labor decreased in the U.S. from 2000 through 2015, but from 2015 to 2022, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, the number of minors employed in violation of child labor laws surged by 283%.
Senator Hawley has also recently cast a vote to protect consumers from bank overdraft fees, introduced a bill to cap out-of-pocket insulin costs at $25 per month, walked union picket lines, and publicly opposed cuts to Medicaid—all positions that one might normally assign to a Democrat rather than a Republican. He has even expressed skepticism about extending the huge corporate tax cuts from Trump’s first term, saying they amount to “taxing the poor to give to the rich.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
What’s going on here? Is Senator Hawley the same archconservative from Missouri who was elected in 2019 at the age of 39 as the Senate’s youngest member—and, until recently, was best known for calling out “wokeness,” being “100% pro-life,” and for raising his fist in solidarity with the insurrectionists of January 6?
Increasingly within the GOP, Hawley is not alone in championing “the little guy and gal” on working-class issues. Vice President JD Vance has highlighted the plight of the white working class that he detailed in his bestselling book Hillbilly Elegy. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has proposed increasing the minimum wage, and long the bane of mainstream libertarian Republicans. Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas has worked with Democrats like progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren to reduce credit card fees. Marshall has said, sounding like Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “I prioritize Main Street over Wall Street.”
Former Senator and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio is also part of this emergent GOP faction of economic populists. These Republicans tend not to be deficit hawks and are pro-tariffs. They embrace a role for private sector unions, even as Republicans invited Teamsters President Sean O’Brien to speak at its RNC presidential convention in 2024.
Traditional libertarian Republicans strike back
However, other Republicans of a more traditional “cut taxes and government” brand are pushing back. In the month-long budget battles in the House, old guard leaders like Rep. Chip Roy from Texas and the House Freedom Caucus have prioritized reducing government debt so that it’s not passed on to the nation’s children. And they are fine with cutting Medicaid and Social Security if necessary. Some deficit hawks, inspired by President Ronald Reagan, want to see budget cuts go even further.
The battle within the GOP is playing out mightily over the current Congressional budget bill. In different iterations of the bill, House Republicans have proposed to combine a $3.8 trillion tax cut with massive budget cuts to pay for it. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, people making over $1 million per year would benefit from about $90,000 in tax cuts while low- to middle-income Americans would receive only $90 to $1290 in tax cuts. Other analyses have reached similar conclusions. In fact, the total $105 billion tax cut going to the handful of households making over $1 million exceeds the total cut going to the 127 million households making under $100,000.
To pay for it, traditional Republicans have proposed slashing Medicaid, food stamps/SNAP, student loan spending, and clean energy programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the budget could cause 8.6 million Americans to lose their healthcare by the end of a decade. Will the GOP populists advocating for the little guy allow that to happen?
Younger generation of Republicans takes the lead
Besides their streaks of economic populism, a common feature of the new GOP leaders is that most of them are from a younger generation. And this intellectual shift can partly be traced to the emerging influence of a youngish, 40-something economist, Oren Cass, and his “new conservative” organization, American Compass. Cass, the author of an influential book, “The Once and Future Worker,” which seeks to stake out common ground across partisan lines, is not so wedded to the libertarian free market brand of traditional Republicans. He also has a more benign view of labor unions and government regulation to harness markets.
Among other non-traditionally conservative ideas, Cass promotes a U.S. version of German-style co-determination, in which worker representation on corporate boards of directors would provide more input and influence. In Germany, such a structure has been a win-win toward labor-management cooperation on working conditions, wages, benefits, productivity, and employer-employee communication.
Economic populist Republicans also have advanced a broadening of workers’ access to Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), which allow employees to become worker-owners in their business of employment and receive compensation beyond wages and benefits. First proposed by corporate and financial lawyer Louis O. Kelso in the 1970s, today 14 million U.S. worker-owners are covered by over 6000 ESOPs, almost as many workers as are members of labor unions, providing $127 billion annually for these employees.
Setting apart Cass, Hawley, and other emerging GOP leaders from their older counterparts is that they came of age not during the laissez-faire economic policies of the Reagan era but during the financial crisis of 2008. “A key driver for us,” Cass says, “is the fundamental insight that free markets aren’t delivering on the things we care about the most.” Hawley says, “Donald Trump’s election showed this: If the Republican Party is going to be a true majority party, we have to be pro-worker.”
This is the type of rhetoric and policies that used to distinguish Democrats from Republicans. But Cass says a blending of political identities is occurring that will play out over the next decade. This shift may herald a realignment in American politics in which the more educated and upper-income parts of the population will move left and large numbers of middle-class workers will move right.
Where is President Trump in all this? On the one hand, Trump also shows streaks of being an economic populist, at least rhetorically. In the past, he has promised to champion “the little guy” struggling to make ends meet. But in his policies, Trump seems to have pivoted from such campaign rhetoric to more traditional GOP policies, such as massive tax cuts that will mostly benefit the wealthy.
It remains to be seen whether all the rhetoric is just a type of “populist washing” to win votes from American workers or if the new GOP leaders have enough influence to pivot the Republican ship in a different policy direction. Which political party will speak most effectively on behalf of middle- and working-class Americans? That is what we are about to find out.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote, and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More