Kitchen Table Democracy supports the work of the National Policy Consensus Center, at Portland State University. To play a catalytic role in helping state leaders develop a collaborative system of governance, Kitchen Table Democracy: Creates and supports collaborative governance capacities, structures, and networks in states. Offers a nationally recognized source of information on collaborative governance. Demonstrates effectiveness of collaborative, democratic based processes. Supports and fosters state leaders who champion these approaches.
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
People waving US flags
LeoPatrizi/Getty Images
Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data
Mar 28, 2026
Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.
Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.
His Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative will create a set of public-facing tools to help users interpret trustworthy information, develop measures to assess information reliability, and produce actionable recommendations for citizens and policymakers.
Below is a transcript of an edited interview with Joel, followed by a link to a one-minute video of Joel describing the project.
Question: Tell us a little about your journey to this NAPA/ Bridge Alliance Fellowship. What experiences or feelings led you to believe that this, this project is necessary and important?
Joel Gurin. The overall direction and goals of strengthening democracy at this particular time are very well timed. I have personally been very involved over the last year as there have been some real changes to the federal data ecosystem and in looking at what that means and whether this is a moment of disruption. So, this could be an opportunity to build a more effective national data ecosystem and to build more public trust in that ecosystem.
Question: Could you describe your project, including listing the project title, your approach, and who you anticipate being potential collaborators and stakeholders?
Joel Gurin. My part of the project falls under the heading: “Trustworthy Information leads to Trust in Government.” And I think the idea that was really framed by the fellowship program was that democracy really depends not only on what we know but on how we know it, and the need to focus on restoring a sort of shared civic reality. A place where we all acknowledge the same information as reliable, and where there's real public trust in that information.
This whole question of trust and information is very multifaceted. Over the next year I’ll be diving into some of these key areas and expect that there will be an opportunity to talk to people who are looking at different aspects of these problems, from people who are working in federal statistical agencies, to people working in non-profits, or even businesses that rely on this kind of information and data to folks who are at the cutting edge of looking at alternative data sources.
Question. How might citizens or other key stakeholders utilize your work on this project to improve American democracy?
Joel Gurin. I think we're living at a time when people are very unsure about what information to trust and how to communicate trustworthiness of information to others. There are issues around disappearing data, particularly federal data issues around the validity of surveys and sampling around how we define the gold standard of science and around the impact of AI. I'm hoping to lay out some frameworks for thinking about these issues in a way that can then help people engage with them individually, organizationally, allowing them to develop some of their own thinking to address the ways that our whole information landscape is shifting very rapidly.
Enjoy the short video:
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Bradford Fitch is the former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation, a former congressional staffer, and author of “The Citizen’s Handbook for Influencing Elected Officials."
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Economic anxiety among millennials and younger Americans is reshaping the American Dream. Explore how rising housing costs, wage stagnation, and inequality are driving political change and weakening trust in institutions.
Getty Images, Natalia Lebedinskaia
The Economic Squeeze on Young Americans: Why It Matters for Democracy
Mar 27, 2026
As a parent of millennials, I can see firsthand the reality described in a recent Barron’s commentary by Randall W. Forsyth: the financial anxiety many younger Americans feel is not misplaced pessimism. It is a rational response to an economy that increasingly feels stacked against them. The traditional markers of stability, especially homeownership, have moved further out of reach. What was once the cornerstone of the American Dream, an affordable house, now feels almost unattainable for many young Americans. The consequences are not only economic. They are political too.
For much of the postwar era, American democracy relied on a powerful assumption: each generation would do better than the last. Economic growth did not eliminate inequality, but it reinforced a broader belief that the system ultimately rewarded effort. Work, education, and saving were expected to lead gradually toward stability and the attainment of the American Dream. Homeownership. Family formation. Modest wealth built over time.
For many younger Americans today, that ladder of opportunity feels increasingly difficult to climb as housing costs, asset inflation, and wage stagnation push the traditional milestones of middle-class life further away.
Housing is only the most visible example. Surveys consistently show that the cost of living—rent, healthcare, education, childcare—is what keeps many young adults up at night. Many young workers, even those with steady employment, report struggling to reach the economic milestones that earlier generations achieved in their twenties and thirties.
This anxiety reflects deeper structural changes in the economy.
For my generation and older ones, asset ownership, especially housing, was the key to middle-class security. Rising property values steadily built wealth in ways wages alone could not. Younger Americans face a different landscape. Asset prices have climbed far faster than incomes, making entry into those wealth-building assets increasingly difficult. Ironically, that same dynamic has helped inflate the wealth of baby boomers like me. As the starting line moves farther away, upward mobility begins to feel less like a path forward and more like a barrier that is harder to overcome.
Economic frustration alone does not automatically destabilize politics. But when economic opportunity appears to shrink across an entire generation, the political consequences begin to accumulate. Over time, that frustration can fuel radicalism on both the right and the left.
Economic Anxiety and Institutional Trust
Recent surveys of younger Americans and young families show not only economic concern but declining trust in institutions. The two trends are closely connected. Poll after poll finds younger citizens expressing limited confidence in Congress, political parties, and other core democratic institutions.
This does not mean younger Americans reject democracy itself. Most still strongly support democratic governance. But many increasingly doubt whether existing institutions are capable of delivering meaningful economic progress.
That distinction matters because citizens can value democracy while simultaneously losing faith in democratic institutions. When that happens, the political system enters a more volatile phase. Dissatisfaction with policy outcomes gradually becomes dissatisfaction with the structures that produce those outcomes. We have seen this shift building since the financial crisis of 2008.
Political scientists have seen this pattern before. Scholars of generational politics and political economy have long noted that when younger cohorts perceive the economic system as closed to them, support for disruptive or populist movements tends to rise. Periods in which younger generations perceive blocked economic opportunity often coincide with waves of political upheaval. The populist movements of the late nineteenth century, the political upheaval surrounding the Great Depression, and the unrest of the late 1960s all emerged in environments where economic expectations collided with structural limits.
These historical parallels point to a deeper issue. Economic frustration becomes politically dangerous when citizens begin to doubt the institutions that once translated effort into reward.
When the System Stops Translating Effort Into Reward
The danger in the current moment is not simply inequality. It is the growing perception that the mechanisms translating effort into reward no longer function as they once did.
For decades, American institutions served as translators of social conflict. Elections, legislatures, and markets turned competing interests into workable outcomes. Citizens might disagree about policy, but they generally believed the system could still produce beneficial results for the majority of Americans. That belief helped sustain the legitimacy of those institutions.
When those translation mechanisms begin to falter, when work no longer reliably leads to stability and education no longer guarantees mobility, the relationship between citizens and institutions begins to change.
Politics becomes less about negotiating outcomes within institutions and more about questioning the institutions themselves.
Economic anxiety among younger Americans is therefore not just a generational mood. It is a signal about the health of the broader democratic ecosystem.
If younger citizens conclude that the traditional routes to stability, such as work, education, and homeownership, no longer function, they will begin searching for alternatives. Those alternatives can take many forms. Disengagement from politics. Support for outsider candidates. Attraction to movements promising dramatic structural change. Since 2008, we have already seen versions of this dynamic emerge: Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party movement, and the populist presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Together, they illustrate how economic frustration can migrate into very different forms of political disruption.
Restoring the Pathways to Stability
None of these outcomes are inevitable. Public policy can still shape the economic environment that younger Americans face. Expanding housing supply in constrained markets. Addressing the burden of student debt. Improving pathways into stable work. Economic mobility has always fluctuated in the United States, and policy choices matter.
Housing supply, student debt, labor markets, and social insurance programs all influence how easily younger Americans can establish stable lives. In a more active Congress, reforms might include legislation to expand housing construction in high-demand areas, measures allowing refinancing or relief for federal student loans, stronger support for childcare and family leave, and policies that strengthen pathways into stable middle-class work. Reforms in these areas will not eliminate economic pressures, but they can help restore the sense that effort is once again connected to reward.
But acknowledging the political stakes is essential.
Economic opportunity has long been the bedrock of American democracy. When citizens believe they have a stake in the future, they invest in the institutions that make that future possible. When that belief weakens, politics begins to shift toward resentment, anger, and spectacle.
The anxiety expressed by younger Americans and many young families is therefore not merely a complaint about rising prices. It is a warning about the deeper relationship between economic opportunity and democratic legitimacy.
A generation that doubts its economic future will inevitably reshape the politics of the country it inherits.
The question now is whether American institutions can restore that sense of possibility before that reshaping takes a far more disruptive form.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Jennifer Lawrence questions whether celebrity activism still matters in politics. As the 2026 midterms approach, explore the decline of celebrity endorsements, rising polarization, and the evolving role of pop culture in shaping voter behavior.
Getty Images, Pool
Jennifer Lawrence Questions Whether Stars Still Influence Politics
Mar 27, 2026
Eight months before the 2026 midterms, one of Hollywood’s most recognizable figures has offered a blunt assessment of her industry’s political influence. Jennifer Lawrence, known for speaking out on issues from gender equality to democratic norms, now questions whether celebrity activism has any real impact.
In a recent interview, Lawrence stated that “celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever in who people vote for.” This is notable both because of her prominence and because it comes at a time when American politics is deeply intertwined with culture and entertainment. She described the Trump era as a time when she felt she was “running around like a chicken with my head cut off,” trying to use her platform to sound alarms. But after years of backlash, polarization, and the sense that celebrity statements only “add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart,” she’s questioning the value of speaking out.
Her comments prompt a broader question: Has celebrity political influence ended, or has it simply evolved? In today’s political and media environment, celebrity political clout has waned, but its cultural sway lingers in subtler ways that continue to shape public consciousness.
Lawrence’s change in perspective is not a withdrawal from political engagement, but an adjustment. She described the Trump era as a period when she was “running around like a chicken with my head cut off,” using her platform to raise concerns. However, after years of backlash and polarization, and feeling that celebrity statements only “add fuel to a fire that’s ripping the country apart,” she is now reconsidering the value of speaking out.
Two main concerns drive her thinking. She fears that political statements may alienate audiences from the art, causing people to reject films that could “change consciousness or change the world” simply because they disagree with her views. Political scientists support her skepticism, noting that celebrity endorsements “seldom shape voter decisions,” as party identity and major events are more influential. This view is backed up by recent research: a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that 72 percent of Americans say celebrity endorsements make no difference in their vote, and only 6 percent say they would be more likely to support a candidate endorsed by a celebrity. Likewise, a 2020 Stanford field experiment tracking the effect of celebrity get-out-the-vote appeals during the presidential election reported minimal impact on turnout or voter choice. Lawrence is expressing what many in Hollywood have quietly felt: the risks of speaking out may now outweigh the benefits.
Lawrence’s remarks come at a time when politics and pop culture are more intertwined than ever.
- Taylor Swift’s mere presence at NFL games triggered political commentary and conspiracy theories.
- Musicians like Bad Bunny and Luke Combs have found their performances interpreted through political lenses.
- Comedians, athletes, and influencers routinely become flashpoints in national debates.
Yet Lawrence suggests that while celebrities’ symbolic influence may be increasing, their ability to persuade is diminishing.
This is the paradox of 2026: Celebrities influence culture, but not necessarily voting behavior.
Three factors help explain the shift Lawrence describes:
- Hyper-polarization has solidified voter behavior. Most Americans now vote along party lines, and celebrity endorsements rarely override party loyalty.
- Audiences are increasingly critical of political expression. Lawrence’s concern about alienating viewers is well-founded, as boycotts, online harassment, and politicized fandoms have become common.
- The influencer economy has fragmented public attention. No single celebrity now commands the broad, cross-demographic reach that stars once enjoyed. Influence is now niche rather than national.
In this environment, a celebrity’s political statement may attract headlines but does not necessarily have a political impact.
Her comments reflect a broader cultural fatigue with celebrity political messaging. Voters may be tuning out celebrities not out of dislike, but because polarization has made celebrity persuasion less meaningful. Despite this, the cultural stakes of the 2026 midterms remain high. With trust in institutions low, celebrities still stand out as some of the few figures able to attract widespread attention.
The question is no longer whether a celebrity endorsement will change a vote, but whether celebrity storytelling can still shape the civic imagination.
Lawrence appears to believe the answer is yes, but only if the storytelling is delivered through art rather than social media.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
woman in orange long sleeve shirt sitting on gray couch
Photo by Joice Kelly on Unsplash
The Hardest Part of Postpartum Has Been Fascism
Mar 27, 2026
The hardest part of postpartum hasn’t been the sleepless nights or the endless cycle of feeding, burping, and diaper changes. It’s been scrolling through the news while nap-trapped under a newborn and realizing that the world my son has just entered feels increasingly hostile and uncertain.
Nothing could have prepared me for navigating the throes of new motherhood while watching fascism unfold in real time.
Life with a newborn is already disorienting. Days blur into nights. Your body is recovering, your brain is foggy from sleep deprivation, and your life revolves around a tiny person who needs you for everything. Through it all, I’ve found myself putting on a smiling face for a baby who knows nothing of the outside world while inwardly grieving the state of that world.
In the span of my son’s first months of life, I’ve seen fascism in the suppression of dissent, where ICE murdered two American citizens, militarism escalating, and immigrants once again scapegoated for problems in the United States, from housing to healthcare and everything in between.
It’s been hard sitting on the sidelines while friends put themselves on the line for their undocumented neighbors and protesting ICE and its abuses of power.
For me, these fears aren’t abstract. Both of my parents left their homelands, their families, and their friends to start over in the United States, hoping to give me a better life. Their migration shaped my own sense of possibility.
Now, as a parent myself, I find myself wondering what I would do to give my son the same chance.
What if my family is targeted simply because we are Latino? At what point would I consider leaving the country to give my child a better future?
Even in the haze of postpartum life, I find myself contingency planning—applying for a passport for my infant son, just in case. At the same time, I’m coming to terms with a painful truth: I cannot shield him from the racism and xenophobia that exist in this world.
While postpartum life can be isolating, I’m reminded that I’m not alone. At a new parent group in the San Francisco Bay Area, several of us admitted that the news has been weighing heavily on us. We are a generation of parents with unprecedented access to information at all hours of the day and night—and very little control over the events shaping our children’s future.
Like many parents, I find myself asking: how do we raise children in times like these?
Those questions keep me up at night just as much as my crying son.
Recently, I came across a post offering guidance to parents on how to talk to young children about violence. It was a small but meaningful reminder that even in frightening times, there are people thinking carefully about how to help children grow up with empathy rather than fear.
My activism looks different these days. Instead of marching in the streets, I spend hours rocking a baby to sleep. Instead of organizing meetings, my nights are filled with lullabies and whispered “I love yous” to a child who has no idea what is happening beyond our home.
Some nights, I sit in the dim light of the nursery while my son drifts off against my chest. His tiny hand holds onto me, his breathing slow and steady in a way that makes the rest of the world feel far away. For a moment, the headlines fade and there is only us.
But even in those moments of peace, the questions remain.
Parenting right now looks like applying for a passport for a baby who can’t sit up yet—just in case. It looks like rocking him to sleep while headlines flash across my phone. It looks like kissing his soft cheeks and praying for a world that is kinder and more just than the one we are living in now.
I may not be able to control the forces shaping my son’s future. But I can raise him to meet that future with compassion instead of cruelty.
In dark times, raising compassionate children is an act of resistance.
Elisabet Avalos is a leader in housing justice, developing programs for survivors of violence experiencing homelessness, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project on Domestic Violence and Economic Security.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization