Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Kevin McCarthy’s downfall may lead to a new center for America

Kevin McCarthy’s downfall may lead to a new center for America
Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

It is either ironic, a harbinger of good things to come, hard to read or some combination that the crisis on Capitol Hill revolving around the ousting of Speaker McCarthy has generated considerable discussion about the need to find a new center for the politics of the U.S. House of Representatives.


A range of pundits and members have recommended that moderates in the Republican caucus or both the Republican and Democratic caucuses take actions that would elect a moderate Speaker of the House. Moreover, Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) has recommended that a handful of moderate Republicans work with Democrats to elect a moderate Republican Speaker who would nevertheless forge a bipartisan relationship with the Democratic caucus to ensure that a set of rules be changed so that they give the Democrats more leverage in House Committees and on the Floor of the House.

What is ironic and possibly a harbinger of good is that the ousting of Speaker McCarthy was the idea of arch conservative Florida Representative Matt Gaetz. Joined by seven other arch conservatives, Gaetz led the way for McCarthy to be ejected from his seat as Speaker, the first Speaker in U.S. history to leave his seat due to a vote to vacate. Thus it would be ironic if moderation emerged from this very right wing source.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Arch conservative Trump close ally Ohio Representative Jim Jordan is currently nominated by the Republican caucus to be Speaker. If he wins, and the odds are not really in his favor, moderation and bipartisanship will have to wait for another opportunity to seize the day.

Regardless of the outcome, the very fact that there are different calls for moderation and bipartisanship is illuminating and even a source for hope. Those who claim that all Democrats are extremely liberal or socialists cannot push this line of thinking today. Those who say that the Problem Solvers Caucus founded by No Labels is more talk than action must recognize that the Problem Solvers keep getting up from the mat after they seem to have been knocked down.

Those who say that the Senator Manchins and Senator Sinemas of the world who have been barking up the wrong tree should take a good look at the various forces in Washington that suggest that we do not have a civil war between extremists liberals and extremist conservatives. Instead, we have two parties with rival factions and enough members who are disgusted with the extremists to at least make moderation and bipartisanship a genuine possibility.

Perhaps the next step in this saga of our national politics is for the people of the United States to get into the arena, especially via their votes in the upcoming primary season. About 40% of our citizens, according to Gallup, do not identify with either major party -- they are independents. We also get between 20 percent and 40 percent turnout in our primaries. The base turns out the most voters, and they are also least likely to be centrists or moderates.

These voters, independents and those who typically sit out primaries and even general elections, can also take seriously independent candidates for office who could provide a distinct third force on Capitol Hill. This would advance the republic to a very different place, one where not bipartisanship but tri-partisanship would rule. For if the Senate had 5-6 independents and the House had 10-15, then it would be necessary for both parties to work with the independents.

It certainly seems possible that if some upstanding non-extremists are the nominees for president from the two major parties, like Nikki Haley, former Republican Governor of South Carolina and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and -- if President Biden determines it is time to pass the baton -- Gavin Newsom, Democratic Governor of California and former Mayor of San Francisco, then America could be in a position to craft a new center for its politics whoever wins the election. This new center might wax and wane every four to six years and not itself be a definite place on the ideological spectrum.

Open primaries, ranked choice voting, and nonpartisan redistricting will be needed to move this process at a warp factor speed, but we should not underestimate the power voters have right now at the voting booth and at their mail boxes. Rep. Gaetz was successful in getting Kevin McCarthy removed from his seat as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, but he may have put enough things into place to reset our national politics in a promising direction.

Read More

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance

Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, standing next to former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, said President Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Assassination attempt will fuel political extremism

Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.

President Joe Biden’s initial response to the attack on Donald Trump, calling it “sick” and reaching out to his stricken adversary to express support, was commendable. Statements from other prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as notable Republicans like former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoed this sentiment of unity and concern.

In contrast, the response from some on the right — engaging in finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric — proved less productive. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination," seemingly in reaction to recent comments from Biden suggesting, "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." This divisive rhetoric only exacerbates the political tension that already grips the nation. Instead of fostering unity, such accusations deepen the partisan divide.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands coming together in a circle of people
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Building a future together based on a common cause

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

As the 2024 presidential campaigns speed toward November, we face a transformative moment for our nation. The challenges of recent years have starkly revealed the deep divisions that threaten our societal fabric. Yet, amidst the discord, we are presented with a pivotal choice: Will we yield to the allure of division, or will we summon the courage to transcend our differences and shape a future founded on common cause and mutual respect?

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

Keep ReadingShow less