Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Playing the long game for a civically engaged democracy

Opinion

The Constitution

The Constitution

zimmytws/iStock via Getty Images

Cambell is executive director of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, which describes itself as a community of funders that invest in the sustaining elements of American democracy and civic life.

Tuesday is Constitution Day, a federal commemoration of the day in 1787 when delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed their document laying the foundation of our government and the hope for "a more perfect union."

That hope persists as our democracy grapples with faltering public trust, deepening partisanship and division.

For those of us who work in civic engagement, the reality of these obstacles has prompted — alongside hope — a flurry of debate about how to respond and speculation about what will come next.


Our nation faces great challenges. But the solution lies in that very phrase: "our nation." Our democracy faces a reckoning because many Americans struggle to identify with those words and connect them to a vision of what civic life is and can be. They don't feel our democratic structures and systems represent them and don't feel the sense of ownership, responsibility and commitment that drives civic action. That disconnect has reverberated across our democracy.

Standing at the intersection of civic engagement and philanthropy, I see several opportunities for funders to take strides toward a healthy and robust representative democracy.

For many, civic engagement equates to voting, voter engagement, political reform and advocacy. For PACE, civic engagement includes all those. But it also includes service, leadership development, deliberative dialogue, charitable giving and more — actions that help us self-govern in civil society.

Most importantly, it's the feeling that ties all those actions together: the desire to be part of something bigger than yourself. It's a sense of responsibility to a community, and that sense of commitment requires a sense of connection.

This sense of connection seems to be growing — notice last year's historic midterm turnout and continued flourishes of activism among Americans — but reinforcing it will take time and intention. Expanding our definition of civic engagement is a necessary first step, because it's in this sense of responsibility to something bigger that democracy's roots to begin to grow.

In the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that "voluntary associations" were unique to our young democracy and held the power to create organic connections. In short, when you allow people to associate freely in everything, they end up seeing the universal connections in their actions — the unique ways in which people can accomplish what they aim to achieve, then feel inspired to do more. People see how change happens by being part of it.

This reflection is supported by civic engagement data which shows that engagement begets engagement. Whether volunteering for the PTA or mentoring a young person, low-barrier civic engagement has the power to improve your quality of life and the lives of those around you. Volunteers are more likely to find jobs than those who don't serve. Communities with high civic health have better economies. Sense of purpose and connection correlate with positive physical and mental health, personal happiness and satisfaction.

Such small-scale actions can be the most meaningful way to get people in the habit of democracy — by building the sense of ownership, trust and connection that civic engagement requires. People who see themselves in all aspects of community life feel they have a responsibility to act. And that sense of belonging and commitment makes civic engagement — and healthy self-governance — possible.

But another truth is that it's easy to distrust, and avoid altogether, that which you don't see yourself in. And if people don't trust — and therefore don't participate in — government, the possibility of a representative democracy falters. Instead, we'll have a democracy only for the people who show up.

Voter mobilization and fair elections are part of the solution but they tell part of the story. We should expand the mechanisms for meaningful engagement by investing in more robust ways for people to engage with elected officials — activities like participatory budgeting, citizens assembly or initiative reviews, participation in public meetings and advocacy as well as marches and rallies. Participating in politics and engaging with government beyond the ballot box is the only way to ensure our government is representative of our voices. That's step two.

Both steps presume people have the skills and support they need to be effective civic actors. Which leads to step three: civic learning, the range of experiences to prepare for informed and engaged participation in civic life and the democratic process. These experiences can occur in classrooms, or out of school and at all stages of life. What's important is that they happen — and that all Americans have access to them.

Young people with access to robust civic learning opportunities are much more likely to become civically engaged as adults. But there are stark disparities in access to civic learning, many along lines of race and income. As a result, our nation's civic education system risks reinforcing inequities dividing our society.

Democracy is a process, not just an outcome. It's also a skill, and it's our responsibility to ensure young people have the tools to build that skill, as well as the knowledge and dispositions that go with them. Ensuring strategic support of civic learning opportunities that build knowledge as well as skills can ensure informed and effective civic engagement. It also has the potential to create a pathway to equity and opportunity so young people may begin to heal what divides our nation.

This political moment has created urgency and concern as well as a tremendous opportunity. Our democracy has proven resilient throughout history, but we have to double down on our commitment to self-governance in order to see that resilience persist. It is our responsibility to make sure the voices that participate represent the voices, experiences and perspectives of all members of our diverse democracy. All Americans need to see themselves in all aspects of civic life, feel a responsibility to act, have the right to do so and have the skills to support them. Democracy is not a given; it is created, every day, by all of us.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less