With low voter turnout and a wide partisan divide, are there better ways to pick candidates?
The primary election season in this midterm election year is now over in most states. Turnout was often very low—less than 20% of registered voters showed up in many places—while the partisan divide was as wide as ever.
An illustration depicting the U.S. Constitution and Government.
Towards the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson became fatalistic. The prince and poet of the American Revolution brooded—about the future of the country he birthed, to be sure; but also about his health, his finances, his farm, his family, and, perhaps most poignantly, his legacy. “[W]hen all our faculties have left…” he wrote to John Adams in 1822, “[when] every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and athumy, debility, and malaise [is] left in their places, when the friends of our youth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know not, is death an evil?”
The question was rhetorical, of course. But it revealed something about his character. Jefferson was aware that Adams and he—the “North and South poles of the Revolution”—were practically the only survivors of the Revolutionary era, and that a new generation was now in charge of America’s destiny.
That reality confounded him. On the one hand, Jefferson retained ideas about the proper path forward for America (which involved a pastoral utopia and an educated, mostly democratic populace). But on the other hand, he knew that his time had passed and that, by right, his children’s generation should decide the country’s future. One of his most famous political beliefs was that a present generation of citizens still beholden to a prior, or dead, generation is just another form of tyranny. “The earth belongs to the living,” he wrote to James Madison in 1789, “the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
For Jefferson, generations represented important markers. And they were distinct. The Revolutionary generation was different from the Federalist generation, which was still different than the Antebellum Generation. They were so dissimilar that Jefferson thought it only just and right that each generation ought to sit down and write its own Constitution. Let each present people shape the national destiny in their own image, he argued.
The sage of Monticello wouldn’t be surprised then to learn that generations today are no more akin. The “Greatest Generation”—those born at the beginning of the 20th century—embodies values, beliefs, opinions, and attitudes that barely resemble those expressed by members of “Gen Z” or the “Alpha Generation.” Their relative worldviews are unrecognizable. The most prominent values offered by the Gen Z community are social justice, authenticity, environmental sustainability, digital literacy, and an entrepreneurial spirit. But what values are offered by the Greatest Generation? Those include duty to one’s country, sacrifice for the common good, and work ethic.
The problem is that these distinctions often lead to misunderstandings. Indeed, torch bearers from one generation rarely appreciate the priorities of torch bearers born in a different time. How often have we heard older Americans say that younger generations are privileged and lazy, that they don’t understand what it takes to maintain this fragile democratic republic? And how often have we heard younger generations accuse older Americans of being “out of touch”? The damage that emerges from generalizations like these contributes to the country’s political rancor. Animosity and distrust are a byproduct of generational misunderstanding.
To combat that, we want to try something unique. Hoping to spark dialogue across differences, we offer readers a series of essays we’re calling, “Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-generational Understanding through Constitution-making.”
The five-part series begins with artificial intelligence. Utilizing ChatGPT, we have generated seven Constitutions, each reflecting the priorities, beliefs, values, positions, and actions of a distinct generation. In short, we’ve become generational constitutional framers (with the help of AI). We asked the chatbot to draft these individual constitutions to include all the design features Americans have come to love: preambles, political branches, distributions of power, individual rights, amendment procedures, ratification processes, and so on. What the generative AI program delivered was seven comprehensive and lengthy constitutional charters, some as many as forty pages long. Our series will compare these fascinating—and deeply revealing—constitutions.
Each month, starting in June, we will contrast a different element or component of the seven constitutions. Beginning with preambles (June), we will subsequently consider political institutions (July), bills of rights (August), amendment procedures (September), and, finally, ratification requirements (October). We will ask the same questions along the way: How do the seven constitutions differ, and how have the articles, clauses, and sections evolved over time? What do they say about the generations that “wrote” them? What do we, as Americans, learn from reading constitutional texts that are written and shaped, influenced and inspired, by individuals who lived through very different historical moments? How can we more effectively—and more civilly—speak to each other across generations? And, ideally, how can we work together, as citizens and sovereigns, to collectively and peacefully realize “a more perfect union?”
Jefferson was no different than others, then and now, in assuming that only the wise elders of the polity could craft a constitution. But he and his revolutionary co-conspirators could never envision an America made up of seven generations simultaneously. Our task in understanding each other, therefore, is exponentially more difficult. So, as we try to bridge our differences—across all intersectional identities—let us give each generation its own constitutional voice, and then see if we can’t find common ground and common purpose. Jefferson would admire that.
Beau Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair in Government at Skidmore College.
Prairie Gunnels just successfully, and with honors, completed her first year at Skidmore.
Small business owner attaching permanent close sign on the shop door.
In the spring of 2025, as American families struggle with unprecedented consumer costs, we find ourselves at a point of "moral reckoning." The latest data from the Yale Budget Lab reveals that tariff policies have driven consumer prices up by 2.9% in the short term. In comparison, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a staggering 6% reduction in long-term GDP and a 5% decline in wages. But these numbers, stark as they are, tell only part of the story.
The actual narrative is one of moral choice and democratic values. Eddie Glaude describes this way in his book “Democracy in Black”: Our economic policies must be viewed through the lens of ethical significance—not just market efficiency. When we examine the tariff regime's impact on American communities, we see economic data points and a fundamental challenge to our democratic principles of equity and justice.
Far too often, the burden of such policies falls disproportionately on those who are least able to bear it. Black Enterprise reports that Black-owned businesses face a dual challenge: economic survival and preserving their role as community anchors. The average American household is preparing to shoulder an additional $3,800 annual costs. Still, this figure masks a more profound inequity—BIPOC communities and working-class families spend a higher percentage of their income on consumer goods, meaning they bear a disproportionate share of the tariff burden.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The state of our economic solvency is particularly crucial because it intersects with a concept known as the “value gap." The value gap is a premise that white(ness) lives are valued more than others, which Gluade argues remains embedded in our economic and legislative policies. Trump's enacted tariffs' disparate impact on ethnic and uniquely diverse-owned businesses isn't merely coincidental; it reflects more profound structural inequities in our financial system.
Small businesses, particularly those in marginalized communities, face existential threats. According to Small Business Majority, 53% of small companies are concerned about tariffs' negative impacts. These aren't just statistics—they represent community pillars, generational wealth builders, and engines of local economic mobility.
Adherence to a moral imperative requires us to move beyond purely economic calculations. It invites deeply reflective and prophetic questioning of ourselves and our systems. We must ask: What kind of society do we wish to be? How do our trade policies reflect our values? The answer lies not in protectionist rhetoric but in "democratic practices"—policies that strengthen communities rather than fracture them.
Many economists forecast that 72% of small businesses anticipate higher prices; we are not just seeing market dynamics at work. The country is witnessing the erosion of community resilience, the narrowing of economic opportunity, and the weakening of social bonds that sustain democratic life. Finding sound solutions requires reimagining our economic policies through a moral lens and prioritizing equity and community well-being. Hence, developing trade policies that:
The potential impact of the proposed tariff on U.S. communities and consumers could not result in economic consequences. Such tariffs bring to bear a moral crisis that demands a response grounded in principled and practical solutions. Pathways forward are possible with increased economic adjustments; they fundamentally rethink how we value community, equity, and democratic participation in financial decisions. A democracy's economy ought to be more than just market efficiency. It should be morally courageous and committed to shared prosperity.
Fierce debate over Trump-era tariffs transcends mere spreadsheets and GDP calculations. It is not an argument about trade deficits or quarterly economic indicators—it's a mirror reflecting our national identity and core values. When leaders indiscriminately slap tariffs on steel from Canada or solar panels from China, we're not just adjusting numbers on a balance sheet but making profound statements about how we view our place in the global community. Unfortunately, protectionist policies often hit hardest in unexpected places: the main street's mom & pop shops, rural American manufacturers who can't afford higher material costs, the local farmer watching crops rot because their usual markets have vanished, or the single parent facing steeper prices at the grocery store.
Instead of retreating behind economic walls, policies that match the complexity of our times are essential—policies that protect American workers while staying true to our traditions of innovation, fair play, and economic opportunity for all. We are left to choose between continuing in a direction that exacerbates economic inequality and community fragmentation or embracing a vision of monetary policy as a moral practice that strengthens our democratic fabric while ensuring no community bears an unjust burden in our pursuit of economic security.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Old empty scales in brass colour against grey background.
“Next to love, balance is the most important thing.” ~ John Wooden
Would John Wooden, UCLA’s winningest basketball coach, who took his team to ten national championships in 12 years and was named the “Coach of the Century” by ESPN, speak so of “love” and “balance” if they were not absolutely critical to a winning formula?
Of course not.
Coach Wooden declares balance “next to love.” He is not referring to the “love you” now uttered after every phone conversation instead of good-bye, so innocuous and automatic we have likely told the plumber we love him before hanging up. What the coach speaks of is deep, even sacrificial, love of family, of others, and of our country.
If any ingredient is missing from the political “soup” lately, it is certainly the most essential one. Yet, we cannot make “soup” without it; love is the broth all the other ingredients simmer in.
The next most important component for success that Wooden declares is “balance.” Balance is essential in our physical bodies, in our psychic outlook, in budgets, and absolutely critical to the world structure. A balanced diet, balancing work/family commitments, a balanced financial statement, and the balance of power are all essential for health and happiness. You do not need to be a yoga instructor to understand that, in every arena, balance is key.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Yet, we have heard tales of great accomplishments springing from focusing on a goal and striving single-mindedly to obtain it, and many think “balance” is not a worthy objective. Instead, they embrace a philosophy smacking of ego and extremism. Such paramount views have played out throughout human history, and they always lead to trouble and tragedy. Intolerance of others is stirred, race, religion, beliefs eroded; bombs drop, wars begin. A political system is out of whack without balance, and the inevitable result is havoc.
We cannot allow ourselves to mistake passion for obstinacy and determination for obsession. Without that essential quality of balance, aspirations teeter and great causes collapse. Balance is truly the most difficult goal to attain, as well as to maintain, and thus most worthy. It is the “holy grail,” the sacred “middle ground,” a place to listen where solutions and compromises are found, where empathy is discovered.
We can usually, more clearly, see balance operating in individuals. So, by not indulging ever in chocolate, or potato chips, or whatever our guilty pleasure may be, will we then live forever? (Or will it just seem like it?) A diet of only green beans is no better; it will also undermine our health. Balance is the key.
We may admire audacity, risk-takers willing to flaunt the rules, and an extreme reaction or viewpoint. But one-sidedness ruins our country’s robustness. It is not healthy, any more than eating just candy, or only vegetables, is.
Corrections inevitably come, and the pendulum will swing, often heading back to the opposite extreme: starvation diets, a year-long binge, a more fanatical left, a more radical right, the crazy excesses. Our country’s founders realized this when drafting our Constitution. They strove for a balance of power between the different branches of the government because it is absolutely essential to a healthy democracy.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of legislative, executive, and judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government."
“Make America Great Again,” presumes it is not great now. But it is and will continue to be by heeding Jefferson’s words. Although increasingly challenged on the domestic front and on the world stage, the United States remains the greatest country the world has ever known.
The instincts of our forefathers were good, and ours are as well, sometimes with a little nudging. We will retain our democracy by maintaining our equilibrium. As Coach Wooden proclaims in his winning principles, we must seek and cultivate tolerance (love) and balance.
Libra is visible in the night sky in the Northern Hemisphere right now, and will remain so through late spring and early summer. The seventh astrological constellation, Libra’s symbol, is a goddess holding a balance scale representing harmony, justice, and balance. It is the model of our government’s Lady Justice. Recognizing the accomplishment of maintaining balance for the great feat it is, President Washington called this symbol “the firmest pillar of justice.” It is the keystone of our democracy.
If we maintain our balance, we cannot fall.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."
Judge gavel and book on the laptop
In November 2024, Elon Musk posted on social media, “There should be no need for [Freedom of Information Act] requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency.” His statement reignited discussions on the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a federal law enacted in 1966 that requires federal executive branch agencies to disclose information in specific ways. Since its original passage in 1966, FOIA has been updated three times to tighten agency compliance, account for digital records, and allow citizens to request records online. Under FOIA, government agencies must disclose information by:
FOIA includes nine exemptions to protect against harms that might result from divulging certain records; these exemptions include cases like invasion of personal privacy, information related to national security, and information that would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.
Concerns over government secrecy grew in the aftermath of the Cold War. In response, Representative John Moss, a Democrat from California, introduced FOIA in 1955 with support from the journalism community. Despite opposition from President Lyndon B. Johnson and every federal agency, the House of Representatives passed the bill with a vote of 307–0. When Johnson signed the legislation in 1966, he included a signing statement emphasizing that the law allowed room for interpretation and exemptions related to national security.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Over the decades, several amendments refined FOIA to make it what it is today. Most notably, the Privacy Act of 1974 was created in response to concerns about individual privacy rights In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments, which required agencies to make documents available electronically. The OPEN Government Act of 2007, signed by President George W. Bush, expanded the definition of “journalist” to include web-based reporters and bloggers. It also established the Office of Government Information Services to oversee FOIA compliance. President Barack Obama further reformed the law with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, which required agencies to update their FOIA regulations and create a centralized online portal for requests. The FOIA Improvement Act also introduced the “foreseeable harm” standard, which prohibits agencies from denying FOIA requests unless they can sufficiently prove that disclosure of the requested records would lead to a specific harm.
FOIA requests are open to anyone, regardless of citizenship status. Requesters must submit their inquiries either electronically or in paper form to the appropriate federal agency. Upon submission, the agency provides a tracking number and begins searching for relevant records. If the requested documents contain sensitive information, agencies redact sections in accordance with the nine exemptions before releasing them to the requester.
The processing time for a FOIA request depends on the complexity of the information sought. Simple requests are generally fulfilled more quickly, while those requiring extensive searches or redactions take longer. In certain circumstances, requests may qualify for expedited processing, particularly if a delay would threaten someone’s safety or if there is an urgent need to inform the public about government activities. While there is no initial fee to file a request, agencies may charge for search time beyond two hours or for duplicating more than 100 pages, depending on the requesting party. If a request is denied, the requester has the right to file an appeal at no cost.
As digital technology has advanced, FOIA has become a tool for journalists and advocacy organizations to uncover government behaviors and potential wrongdoings. Some FOIA requests eventually turn into lawsuits. For example, in 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit for the Department of Justice to turn over records on the government’s use of individual cell phones as tracking devices. In 2016, Color of Change and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation for not responding to their FOIA requests, which they had submitted that same year for records about federal surveillance of Black Lives Matter protests.
During the Trump administration, FOIA requests were frequently used to fact-check government statements, investigate the COVID-19 response, and examine financial conflicts of interest. In 2017, federal agencies redacted or withheld 78 percent of requested records, the highest rate in a decade. That same year, FOIA lawsuits rose by 26 percent, marking a 70 percent increase from 2012.
Under the Biden administration, FOIA request processing remained similarly restrictive. In fiscal year 2023, over two-thirds of requests were either redacted, withheld, or denied on the basis that no relevant records were found. Agencies received nearly 1.2 million FOIA requests that year, setting a new record. Approximately 40 percent of requests were only partially fulfilled, a rate comparable to the final year of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the number of requests fully granted dropped from 21 percent in 2020 to 16 percent in 2023.
Supporters of FOIA argue that the law promotes public transparency and holds government officials accountable for fraud, waste, and abuse. In a democratic society, access to government information is essential for maintaining trust between the public and its government. Proponents argue that government transparency is especially important in the post-9/11 era, as government agencies have expanded their data collection efforts while often keeping these activities secret.
In addition to promoting the democratic ideal of an informed citizenry, supporters argue that FOIA is especially useful to potential voters. FOIA gives Americans access to in-depth knowledge about their political representatives, allowing them to make more informed choices at the polls.
Finally, supporters argue that FOIA allows advocacy organizations to amplify and seek justice for government wrongdoing that would otherwise remain secret. They point to instances where FOIA requests have led to the discovery of misinformation campaigns, coordinated use of excessive force against protesters, and surveillance. In some cases, such as the aforementioned 2008 and 2016 lawsuits, FOIA requests can provide a foundation for victims of injustice to seek accountability.
Although FOIA initially faced challenges such as bureaucratic delays and inconsistent enforcement, proponents contend that amendments over the years have made the process more accessible. The rise of digital technology has also made it easier for agencies to share information with the public.
Opponents argue that FOIA places an excessive burden on federal agencies by requiring them to respond to requests within a short time frame despite limited resources and funding. They also argue that FOIA contributes to an overburdened judicial system, as courts must handle cases involving delayed or incomplete responses to FOIA requests. Another concern is that FOIA allows too many requests driven by personal curiosity rather than legitimate public interest, further straining agency resources.
On the other hand, some criticize FOIA’s broad exemptions, arguing that agencies frequently overuse them to withhold information. Exemption 5, which protects privileged communications between agencies, is particularly controversial. In 2013 alone, it was cited more than 81,000 times to deny FOIA requests.
Another longstanding issue is the excessive delay in releasing certain records. The FBI, for example, took nearly 25 years to release files on musician John Lennon following an ACLU request. The agency withheld the final 10 documents until 2006, citing concerns about “foreign diplomatic, economic, and military retaliation” against the United States. However, when the documents were finally disclosed, they contained only well-known information about Lennon’s connections to antiwar groups. ACLU legal director Mark Rosenbaum described the prolonged secrecy as “government paranoia at a pathological level.”
To address some of these concerns, several reforms have been proposed to improve FOIA while balancing the government’s need for confidentiality. One suggestion is to limit the duration that records can be withheld under Exemption 5. Proponents of this reform suggest that setting a maximum withholding period of 12 years—the same limit applied to presidential records involving deliberative processes—could help prevent excessive secrecy while still protecting sensitive government deliberations. Another proposed reform is to implement a “balancing test” that requires agencies to weigh the government’s interest in confidentiality against the public’s right to access records.
FOIA is a landmark law that changed the landscape of government transparency. While it has undergone reforms to improve public access to records, challenges such as delayed processing times and resource constraints hinder its effectiveness. Ongoing debates about FOIA reflect broader tensions regarding national security, government efficiency, and the public’s right to information.
Sophia Cheng is a Research Associate with the Alliance for Citizen Engagement. She is a freshman at Northwestern University studying History and Environmental Policy.
Understanding The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) was first published by the Alliance for Citizen Engagement, and republished with permission.
