Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How to rename D.C.'s football team and help fix democracy, too

Greenbacks logo
Tristiaña Hinton/The Fulcrum
Golden is a communications consultant, the author of "Unlock Congress" (Why Not Books) and a senior fellow at the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy. He is a member of The Fulcrum's editorial advisory board.

"Hang a lantern on your problem" was favorite advice from Robert F. Kennedy. In other words, confront a challenge head-on. Illuminate it. Then take steps to tackle it.

Dan Snyder, who announced this week that he will soon rename the NFL franchise he owns, has an opportunity to do one better than RFK's mantra.

By changing Washington's football team name to the Greenbacks, Snyder would not only move a controversial spotlight off of himself, he would also refract it onto an enormously important issue that is starved for more attention: the corrupting influence of big money in American government.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that Americans aren't already aware of this abomination in our politics. In fact, the overwhelming majority of us— regardless of political stripe — say we want reform.

A survey conducted by the University of Maryland found 88 percent believe it's important to reduce the influence of special-interest cash in Washington.

More dramatically, 75 percent support a constitutional amendment that would supersede the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision a decade ago and allow "Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others who seek to influence elections."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Our collective support for curbing corruption in Congress should come as no surprise. We know that the preferences of the wealthy influence legislative decisions far more than the rest of us. In fact, the desires of the top 10 percent matter 15 times more than the other 90 percent, according to research from Martin Gilens and Ben Page.

So if we all know that we're getting screwed by the billions of dollars washing through the Capitol, and if nearly all of us have said that we want to change this corrupt system, then why doesn't it happen?

The answer to that question is our national attention span. We don't have one. Not in a sustained enough way where most of us will take real and consistent action.

For instance, most Americans — even within that 75 percent who support a constitutional amendment — are not aware that there are proposed constitutional amendments sitting right now in both the House and the Senate.

But if we don't demand their passage, they won't pass. If we don't vote on the issue and then call our representatives once they're in office, nothing happens.

All of which brings me back to suggesting that Snyder rename his team the Washington Greenbacks. The allusion will be lost on no one. When you change the name of one of the most storied teams in NFL history to associate it with pay-for-play cash money — and that team is in the nation's capital — Americans will have no choice but to regularly contemplate why we allow a corrupt system to roll over us. Daily.

As an old political boss of mine used to say when we were collecting financial pledges: "You want them to remember it? Staple it to their foreheads."

Some might assert that it's nearly impossible to get a constitutional amendment through Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states. It's an easy argument, since we haven't done so in a while. It's also silly. We've added 17 amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights. Same rules.

Jeff Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonpartisan group dedicated to passing such an amendment to wack the flow of greenbacks. He's in the fight every day. He says he needs more fighters:

"In order to eliminate out-of-control big elite money from our political system, we need this 28th Amendment to the Constitution. American Promise has achieved great progress on this goal — but to make it a reality we'll need millions more Americans to make their voices heard."

Americans need a reminder. Regularly. The Greenbacks.

Yes, I'm aware that Snyder is a massively wealthy guy who almost certainly benefits from tax laws and other public policy decisions driven by special-interest cash. But it's never too late to do the right thing.

If he changed the name of the Redskins to some simple and non-controversial moniker, Snyder would at least be catching up to the 21st century.

But if he renamed it the Greenbacks, he'd be strengthening his country — and stepping into immortality.

Go big, Dan. And if it misses the mark, you won't need to sweat it — Greenbacks are also a species of fish. Worked out fine in Miami.

Read More

Large Bipartisan Majorities Oppose Deep Cuts to Foreign Aid

The Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland releases a new survey, fielded February 6-7, 2025, with a representative sample of 1,160 adults nationwide.

Pexels, Tima Miroshnichenko

Large Bipartisan Majorities Oppose Deep Cuts to Foreign Aid

An overwhelming majority of 89% of Americans say the U.S. should spend at least one percent of the federal budget on foreign aid—the current amount the U.S. spends on aid. This includes 84% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats.

Fifty-eight percent oppose abolishing the U.S. Agency for International Development and folding its functions into the State Department, including 77% of Democrats and 62% of independents. But 60% of Republicans favor the move.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Super Bowl of Unity

A crowd in a football stadium.

Getty Images, Adamkaz

A Super Bowl of Unity

Philadelphia is known as the City of Brotherly Love, and perhaps it is fitting that the Philadelphia Eagles won Sunday night's Super Bowl 59, given the number of messages of unity, resilience, and coming together that aired throughout the evening.

The unity messaging started early as the pre-game kicked off with movie star Brad Pitt narrating a moving ad that champions residence and togetherness in honor of those who suffered from the Los Angeles fires and Hurricane Helen:

Keep ReadingShow less
The Paradox for Independents

A handheld American Flag.

Canva Images

The Paradox for Independents

Political independents in the United States are not chiefly moderates. In The Independent Voter, Thomas Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali make it clear that independents are basically anti-establishment. They have a "mindset" that aims to dismantle the duopoly in our national politics.

I have previously written about different ways that independents can obtain power in Washington. First, they can get elected or converted in Washington and advocate with their own independent voices. Second, they can seek a revolution in which they would be the most dominant voice in Washington. And third, a middle position, they can seek a critical mass in the Senate especially, namely five to six seats, which would give them leverage to help the majority party get to 60 votes on policy bills.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat

A single pawn separated from a group of pawns.

Canva Images

The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat

Excerpt from To Stop a Tyrant by Ira Chaleff

In my book To Stop a Tyrant, I identify five types of a political leader’s followers. Given the importance of access in politics, I range these from the more distant to the closest. In the middle are bureaucrats. No political leader can accomplish anything without a cadre of bureaucrats to implement their vision and policies. Custom, culture and law establish boundaries for a bureaucrat’s freedom of action. At times, these constraints must be balanced with moral considerations. The following excerpt discusses ways in which bureaucrats need to thread this needle.

Keep ReadingShow less