The Millennial Action Project (MAP) is the largest nonpartisan organization of millennial policymakers in the United States We develop the next generation to overcome partisanship on future-focused challenges and democracy reforms. MAP is connecting young lawmakers across state and party lines to find innovative solutions to democracy reform that make government more accountable, participatory, and representative for all.
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
Margaret Kobos is CEO and founder of Oklahoma United
Photo Provided
The Fahey Q&A with Margaret Kobos, CEO and founder of Oklahoma United
Jan 24, 2026
Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Katie Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the democracy reform world for our Opinion section.
Margaret Kobos is CEO and founder of Oklahoma United, a grassroots political nonprofit with the mission to empower moderate and centrist voters in Oklahoma. OKUnited seeks to enact balance, common-sense solutions, and full representation of all voters through advocacy and systemic improvements. Currently, Margaret leads the Vote Yes 836 campaign to open the state’s closed primary system.
Our conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Fahey: We have heard you are approaching a big deadline. What needs to happen to put Oklahoma’s State Question 836 on the November ballot?
Kobos:
We have until January 26 to collect over 173,000 signatures, and we are working hard to reach that goal. Hundreds of signature gatherers are fanning out across the state daily, seeking out registered voters at high-volume locations like sporting events and shopping centers. We also have dozens of pre-set locations statewide posted regularly to VoteYes836.com. If you are an Oklahoman who feels that voting is an essential basis for sound government, we need your signature! Anyone interested in signing the petition, please check the website for a time and location that works for you.
Fahey: How did you get involved with OKUnited?
Kobos:
I am a fourth-generation Oklahoman with a long career in law and banking. I have worked with private donors and public institutions to build community facilities and maintain parks and cultural assets. It became clear to me that the persistent challenges that hold Oklahoma back are rooted in a political system that excludes too many voters and rewards division. I founded OKUnited in 2021 to build a broad, nonpartisan coalition focused on voter education, civic engagement, and reform, which ultimately led to the filing of State Question 836.
Fahey: What is State Question 836 advocating for?
Kobos:
State Question 836 would replace Oklahoma’s closed primary system with a single, open primary ballot for state and county offices. All candidates, regardless of party, would appear on one primary ballot with their party affiliation listed, and every registered voter could vote in that “open” primary. The two candidates who receive the most votes would advance to the general election.
The goal is to ensure every Oklahoma voter has a voice in every taxpayer-funded election, and to encourage broader participation and accountability.
Fahey: Tell us about the current system of closed primaries in your state and how it impacts independent voters.
Kobos:
Oklahoma is one of a few states with a fully closed primary system, meaning only voters registered with a political party can participate in that party’s primary elections. All independent voters are sidelined completely in primaries, which is important as those primaries are the elections that matter. Only about 2 percent of elected officials are chosen in a competitive general election; the rest essentially win office when they win a primary.
What this means is that a huge number of taxpayers are shut out of the most important elections, including 500,000 independent voters (about 20% of the electorate) who are completely excluded from June primaries and August primary run-offs. Democrats in heavily Republican districts and Republicans in heavily Democratic districts also cannot vote in those vital local elections.
Fahey: Who are the main opponents of your effort, and what are their arguments against it?
Kobos:
Our opponents are mostly party insiders who benefit, politically and/or financially, from the closed primary system. They fear disruption and invest considerable sums into sowing fear and distractions to maintain the status quo.
Our pitch to Oklahomans in both parties is: aren’t we tired of a system where a small number of insiders make the rules, set the agenda, and choose our candidates? Let’s put power back in the hands of the people, where it belongs.
Fahey: What do you think your campaign needs to do to be successful this November?
Kobos: Step one is to get on the ballot by hitting our signature goal. We are making good progress, but every signature counts. If you are reading this and are an Oklahoma voter, please go to VoteYes836.com and find a location to sign this petition.
Step two is continue to communicate the deficiencies of our current system and how open primaries will address those deficiencies. Oklahoma has the lowest voter turnout in this country; we are last in education, and rank poorly in health and economic indicators. We rank last in voter turnout as we actively discourage and disqualify people from voting. Closed primaries punish candidates seeking solutions and collaboration rather than serving up controversy on social media, and it is impossible to solve problems in that environment.
We are moving to a system that is more inclusive and accountable, so we can move this state forward. If we get that message out, it will resonate with many voters.
Fahey: What are some of the best practices and lessons you have learned from past successes in ballot initiatives?
Kobos: This is my first ballot initiative, but we have drawn some lessons from other successful petitions. Our bipartisan team is the reason we were successful initially and have sustained that success. Our team and supporters originate from all political sides. They share an intense commitment to basic ideals of voting and public service, and complementary expertise. The next component for success in any movement is persistence. Currently, that means hitting the streets and gathering signatures daily, and we are sprinting to the finish line of January 26th.
In Oklahoma, we had to approach our issue via ballot initiative, and not via the legislative process. Political elites benefiting from the status quo will throw up every obstacle they can to keep the people of Oklahoma from voting on this. It is essential to balance your perspective in this process: surround yourself with smart people with constructive attitudes, yet listen when you hear criticism. I believe that is the secret to sustaining momentum while pivoting when necessary in a movement.
Fahey: What do you currently need the most help with?
Until January 26th, we need registered voters to sign the petition, spread the word that they’ve signed, and direct friends and colleagues to do the same. Additionally we need donations to fund our signature gathering operation, including printing ballots, training, transportation, and other essentials that power this effort.
You can check signature-gathering locations and also make donations at VoteYes836.com.
Fahey: If you were speaking with a high school student or a new immigrant to our country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?
Kobos: My friend and I were recently musing about how we wanted to be remembered, at the end of the day. Without hesitation, I stated that I just want my son to be proud of me. That’s a high bar for a parent, as our children look up to us. That is why I became involved in this election reform work; I felt a need to “walk the walk”.
Our young people are bright, talented, and full of creative and positive energy. We must set them up with every tool they will need to take this country and our state of Oklahoma into the future. The right to vote is the most powerful tool.
Being an American to me means looking forward with positive energy. As a nation we often reinvent or forget much of our history, yet the ability to shake off the past, move forward, and problem-solve through daunting odds is also a strength, and something America does exceptionally well. It frees us to create.
We are a nation built on progress, determination, grit, and common sense. I get excited when I imagine the new ideas our youth and immigrants will certainly bring to action in the future. America was created in collaboration, using the best available tools and systems known to civilization. That is where we will shine in the future.
Katie Fahey is Executive Director of The People.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Photo produced using AI
Reflecting on the First Year of The 50: Voices of a Nation
Jan 24, 2026
As we begin the second year of The 50: Voices of a Nation, I want to take a moment to thank you — our readers, partners, and communities across the country — for walking with us through this ambitious, four‑year journey to understand American democracy from the ground up.
This project began in 2025 with a simple but urgent question: What motivated Americans to vote in 2024, and how is life unfolding under the Trump administration?
Over the first twelve months, Hugo Balta, Executive Editor of The Fulcrum, traveled state by state, listening to people whose stories rarely make national headlines but whose experiences reveal the real conditions of civic life in this country. The 50 is built on that commitment — to meet people where they are, a rare chance to see democracy in action—one story, one state, one voice at a time.
A Maryland Program Connects Marginalized Communities to Critical Health Services
- YouTube youtu.be
We closed 2025 with a trip to Maryland, where community health ambassadors are working tirelessly to connect marginalized residents with lifesaving information and services.
Their work began during the uncertainty of the COVID‑19 pandemic and continues today as they build trust, counter misinformation, and bridge long‑standing gaps in access to care. Their story is a reminder that democracy is not only about elections — it’s about the everyday labor of people strengthening their communities from within.
2025 also marked a major milestone: the premiere of The 50: Voices of a Nation television special on CAN-TV. The hour‑long broadcast brought viewers across the country into the living rooms, workplaces, and neighborhoods where Americans are navigating the impact of national policies on their daily lives.
It was a powerful moment of visibility for the communities we’ve met — and for the mission that drives this work.
I invite you to watch the groundbreaking program.
- YouTube youtu.be
We Need Your Support
As the new year gets underway, our commitment deepens. In 2026, we continue traveling to new states, expanding our multimedia storytelling, and bringing you closer to the people whose voices define the civic landscape. The stakes remain high, and so does our responsibility to tell these stories with accuracy, empathy, and depth.
Independent, community‑centered journalism like The 50 is only possible because of people like you. If you believe in this work — in elevating lived experience, in strengthening civic understanding, in building a more informed democracy — we ask you to consider donating today by clicking HERE.
Your support ensures we can continue reporting from every corner of the country and keep this project accessible to all.
Thank you for being part of this journey.
Here’s to another year of listening, learning, and lifting the voices of a nation.
Best wishes,
David
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
US President Donald Trump delivers a special address during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on Jan. 21, 2026.
(Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)
Trump’s globalist era is going to make everyone poorer
Jan 24, 2026
I’m not sure what to call the new era we seem to be entering. But I am sure it will make people poorer.
Let’s start with some basics. Imagine you inherit a thriving department store chain. Rather than listen to experts on consumer trends, supply-chain logistics, human resources, etc., you instead opt to go with your gut. Rather than follow market research or anything like that, you prefer to just hire your friends and do business with vendors who flatter you or sell stuff you think is cool. Under such a “system,” you might make some good business decisions, but odds are very strong that you’ll more often make bad ones. The rep from the Pet Rock supplier who gives you a “World’s Greatest Businessman” award gets his products in the store window.
I chose a department store for this analogy because that’s precisely how President Trump thinks about international trade, and the American economy in general. He sees America like “a department store, and we set the price. I meet with the companies, and then I set a fair price, what I consider to be a fair price.” In Trump’s mind, that’s what tariffs are, even though they are mostly paid for by American consumers.
The problem, beyond the basic economic illiteracy inherent in the analogy, is that Trump keeps changing the “price” based on noneconomic considerations. To name just the most recent example (of many), over the weekend the president declared that he’ll tear up trade deals he made with eight European allies and levy tariffs on their goods until they acquiesce to his demands for Greenland.
Now, in almost every business, there’s a little favoritism — giving a job or promotion to a nephew, offering a lucrative contract to a friend. But it’s understood that these are deviations from sound business practices. For Trump, sound business practices are the deviation from his policy of favoritism.
I should note that there are other forms of more explicitly ideological favoritism. For decades, many on the left have championed policies that prioritize social or political goals over sound economics. They’ve gone by different labels, including “social responsibility,” which morphed into things such as environmental, social and governance investing and diversity, equity and inclusion. But the idea is always the same: The government should impose standards and policies based on something other than profit-seeking and shareholder value. This is not always wrong, either. Child labor and worker safety laws, for example, are worth the costs they impose.
Such examples are outnumbered by countless other laws and regulations that replace economic decision-making with political expediency. Populism has historically been one of the main drivers of such distortions. Hence, it should surprise no one that Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, see eye to eye on capping credit card interest rates.
What differentiates Warren from Trump is that she’s a traditional progressive populist ideologue arguing from a body of thought that exists as much on her bookshelf as in her own head. Trump’s approach resides entirely in his gut.
As a free market guy, I don’t trust Warren’s bookshelf or Trump’s gut.
Which gets us to why this new era — let’s call it, the post-globalist era — will make us poorer.
Across the world, corporations large and small are making business decisions based upon geopolitical and plain old political calculations. Nowhere is this more obvious than international trade. If you think tariffs can rise at a moment’s notice because the president of the United States woke up on the wrong side of the bed, you’re going to hedge against that risk. Firms around the world are reorganizing their supply chains to become less reliant on the American market (and in some cases the Russian and Chinese markets). Almost by definition, these moves are not maximally efficient. Less efficiency equals less productivity. Less productivity equals less wealth creation and growth.
But it’s also true in other ways. If you know that the department store’s new boss likes gold, you’re going to paint more of your Pet Rocks gold. If the management insists on taking partial ownership of your company — something Trump has done more than any president in modern history — you’re going to make defensive decisions aimed at not pissing them off. As the Economist reports, everywhere you look, multinational companies are making decisions based on geopolitical considerations. “When companies are forced to allocate capital on geopolitical lines, they become less productive, reducing prosperity for all.”
For nearly my entire adult life, American conservatives understood this basic point and argued against excessive political or ideological distortions of markets. Remember all that talk about “picking winners and losers” and “crony capitalism” in the Obama era?
But for some reason, many conservatives think it’s fine to outsource economic decision-making to a single man. And most of us will be poorer for it.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Woman walking, carrying a bag
Provided
Narratives in Motion: How Civil Society Is Redefining Its Place in the World
Jan 24, 2026
Narratives matter more than we often admit. They shape how we imagine civil society, what we expect from it, how much legitimacy we grant it, and what role it plays in times when everything—politics, technology, conflicts, public perceptions—feels accelerated. Today, narratives are shifting at the global, regional, and national levels, revealing a deeper collective redefinition.
A Global Shift Is Deeper Than It Appears
At the global level, something fundamental is happening: the way civil society and development are described is changing. For decades, international cooperation was organized around a vertical and binary logic rooted in a colonial mindset, a model based on the idea that some actors “help” and others “receive help.” This framework shaped discourse, funding structures, institutional relationships, and expectations. It was never designed to be equitable, and its limitations go far beyond the current crisis.
Today, democratic, economic, environmental, and humanitarian crises are intertwined and make the inadequacy of this model impossible to ignore. But it is important to be clear: the system is not failing because of the crisis; it was flawed at its conception. The present context simply makes structural problems more visible.
This moment, then, is an opportunity. Not to adjust the old model, but to rethink it from the ground up: how it works, who decides, who defines success, and how responsibility is shared globally. The dominant narrative is moving toward interdependence, a perspective in which all societies contribute, build, and make decisions, and in which proximity to communities, local legitimacy, and long-term trust matter more than financial leverage or bureaucratic compliance.
This shift is also visible in language. Terms like beneficiaries, which reduce people to passive recipients, are giving way to words like actors, communities, and partners, which recognize agency, history, and collective identity. As such, language is not cosmetic; it helps reorganize the architecture of the system.
Changing narratives is a key component to real transformation around redistributing power and ensuring that decisions are made closer to those affected. It also necessitates that legitimacy be grounded in presence, consistency, and lived experience rather than in external indicators.
Identity, Contestation, and Creativity in Latin American Narratives
The Latin American region reveals a landscape where narratives about civil society are marked by political tension, historical inequalities, and new digital actors who are competing for attention and legitimacy.
One of the strongest dynamics impacting the success or failure of narratives is polarization. In many countries, civil society has become entangled in an environment where any public intervention is interpreted through rigid partisan lenses. For many people, suspicion is now part of everyday life. There is suspicion surrounding financing, political ties, and international alliances. In this climate, it is difficult to communicate complexity or to build broad public trust.
At the same time, the region has seen the rise of highly organized actors—some using traditional media, others deeply digital—who craft their own narratives and compete for cultural influence. The public debate is no longer framed simply as “civil society vs. government” but as a multifaceted arena where movements, platforms, and networks compete for legitimacy.
Technology accelerates these tensions. Social media has become a central arena where misinformation spreads quickly, stereotypes are reinforced, emotions outrun evidence, and algorithms reward outrage and ignore nuance.
These circumstances push civil society organizations to not only rethink how to communicate but also to reconsider how to reach diverse audiences without sacrificing depth.
In contrast to these challenges, a powerful idea has emerged: the most compelling narratives in Latin America come from within its territory. They come from everyday stories of communities organizing, resisting, creating, and experimenting:
- women forming and sustaining neighborhood kitchens
- youth producing their own positive digital content
- communities developing technologies that reflect their needs
- collectives defending rights that are grounded in their own cultural, historical, and epistemological frameworks
- organizations generating data and documentation from the ground up
Born from lived experience, these narratives are often more impactful than top-down, formal messaging.
Latin America is home to extraordinary narrative creativity. The region blends cultural heritage, innovation, and collective action in ways that produce new forms of storytelling and participation. This creativity not only generates solutions but also generates meaning.
The Argentine Lens
Nationally, Argentina presents yet another layer of this global–regional phenomenon.
Civil society often oscillates between two opposing stereotypes:
- an idealized image (“good people helping others”)
- and a suspicious one (“politicized organizations with hidden interests”)
Both flatten the complexity of the work, which involves professionalism, planning, data analysis, policy advocacy, accountability, and strategic management.
News media play an ambivalent role. On the one hand, they are drawn to conflict and controversy; on the other, they increasingly rely on civil society for reliable data, territorial insight, and contextual analysis. This creates an opening: civil society can become a trusted reference in a context marked by widespread institutional distrust.
Digitally, organizations face a rapidly evolving environment. Algorithms move fast, misinformation circulates effortlessly, new platforms emerge constantly, and artificial intelligence reshapes how audiences engage with information. Many groups with strong digital strategies already dominate the conversation and are pushing civil society to adapt while preserving accuracy and integrity.
Communication is not an accessory but it is part of institutional work. Explaining what organizations do, why they do it, and what impact they generate strengthens social trust, connects with supporters, and helps counter harmful stereotypes.
Connecting the Three Levels
When the global, regional, and national perspectives are viewed together, several shared insights emerge:
- Narratives are part of the struggle for power. They influence legitimacy, public trust, and the ability to shape agendas.
- Civil society must reclaim its own story. Not defensively, but by clearly stating its mission, evidence, and long-term contributions.
- Community voices belong at the center. The strongest narratives come from the ground up, not from distant institutions.
- Technology amplifies but does not replace content. The message—grounded, coherent, meaningful—remains essential.
- The current crisis creates room for reinvention. The fall of old models opens a rare opportunity to build a more just, horizontal system.
Civil society is living through a moment of narrative re-writing — one that carries responsibility and possibility. The challenge is not to invent something entirely new but to recognize what has always been there: communities, shared experiences, collective strength, and the capacity to create futures even in the midst of uncertainty.
This article was originally published as part of Resilience & Resistance, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that features the insights of thought leaders and practitioners who are working to expand and support inclusive democracies around the globe.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More