Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Reimagining American democracy as governance for the future

Reimagining American democracy as governance for the future
Getty Images

Suzette Brooks Masters is a social entrepreneur, philanthropic advisor, thought leader and strategist in the fields of democracy, futures and pluralism. She leads the Better Futures Project at the Democracy Funders Network and recently authored Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy from which this piece is adapted.

I recently published Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy after extensive research on what governance innovations might make American democracy more resilient, adaptable and innovative, able both to meet the immense challenges and exploit the vast opportunities the future holds.


Here’s what I found.

American democracy is at a crossroads. Its institutions and processes are under attack and suffer from trust and legitimacy deficits. After a long period of complacency, the pro-democracy movement in America is now keenly aware of the system’s vulnerability and the many forces threatening its continued viability. Numerous efforts to shore it up and protect it, increase voter access and participation, and prevent authoritarian disruption have had some success. But a key ingredient is often missing when system preservation is a primary directive: reimagining our governance model for the future, not the past, so our system functions well, delivers for its people, and is capable of solving problems for future Americans. I call that “futures readiness” and America sorely lacks it.

The United States — at all levels and across all branches — lags many other countries in adopting and making full use of strategic foresight and futures thinking to chart a course towards our North Star — a more equitable, pluralist, sustainable and abundant society and planet — and prepare fully for the curve balls that will inevitably be hurled at us along the way. It also suffers from a short term orientation with a hyper focus on elections and voting, with less emphasis on new forms of civic engagement like citizen assemblies and other sortition-based approaches that could engage Americans outside of polarizing electoral campaigns.

But I am buoyed by the many ways people, organizations and governments ARE reorienting their focus to imagine better futures and forms of governance, and put the foundations in place to realize those futures. There are many models and experiments to learn from. I share some of these promising innovations here, many of which may not be commonly known, to spark greater interest in adopting them in America.

The Future Is Already Here

After I read Kim Stanley Robinson’s Ministry for the Future, the widely read and highly influential work of climate fiction, I happily learned that the fictional Ministry for the Future that features prominently in the story was based on governance roles that already exist, although Robinson enhanced them in his speculative future world. That made me realize that the seeds of the future already exist around us, if we can discern and nurture them.

Governance for the future is a dynamic area, still in its infancy. I expect it will continue to evolve rapidly, particularly as nations, international bodies, civil society actors and publics seek to respond to collective problems in new, responsible ways capable of meeting the critical moment we are in, and youth voices gain prominence and power.

While it’s too soon to know exactly what models and tools will work best in which types of situations, many emergent approaches use the pivotal concept of intergenerational fairness, emphasize the need to imagine alternative futures, and use “futures thinking” tools and techniques to widen horizons, challenge assumptions, work backwards from preferred futures to inform action in the present, and stress test decision making against different possible future scenarios.

Below, I discuss four types of innovations to bring “futures thinking” into governance.

New governance models and public service roles designed to bring about desirable futures and incorporate the interests of future generations, not only current ones.

New frameworks to assess how current policies will affect future generations.

Proxies to represent the interests of future generation stakeholders.

Skills to help policy makers, government officials and civil society actors think about, imagine and plan for a range of possible futures.

New Governance Models and Roles

Beginning mostly after 2000, future-oriented governance innovations — including councils and commissioners of future generations — began to emerge across the globe, notably in Israel, Hungary, Canada, and Australia. This follows Singapore’s early investments beginning in the 1980s in strategic planning and horizon scanning and Finland’s establishment of the Committee for the Future in Parliament in 1993.

Building on these early foundations, Wales established the first major systemic intervention in governance embedding concern for future generations and foresight approaches. The Future Generations Commissioner for Wales is tasked by the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act of 2015 to be the “guardian of the interests of future generations in Wales.” From this perch, the Commissioner advises the government and other public bodies in Wales on how to deliver social, economic and cultural well-being for future generations.

Scotland has now joined Wales in appointing a future generations commissioner to combat short-term thinking in politics. And, more broadly in the United Kingdom, the All Party Parliamentary Group for Future Generations was established in 2017 “to create space for cross-party dialogue on combating short-termism and to identify ways to internalize concern for future generations into today’s policy making.”

One of its major initiatives is to support the passage in the UK of the draft Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill, modeled on the law passed in Wales. The bill is making its way through Parliament. In response to growing interest in futures planning and foresight, Europe has now established a network of European Ministers for the Future for politicians and senior officials to institutionalize these new capacities across member states.

In an important and related shift, in fall 2021, UN Secretary General Guterres proposed a bold new vision — “Our Common Agenda” — to address a wide range of vexing, existential global challenges. “Humanity faces a stark and urgent choice: breakdown or breakthrough. The choices we make — or fail to make — today could result in further breakdown and a future of perpetual crises, or a breakthrough to a better, more sustainable, peaceful future for our people and planet.”

Among the action steps laid out in Our Common Agenda are the establishment of a UN Special Envoy to ensure that policy and budget decisions take into account their impact on future generations, the elevation of the UN’s Youth Office, the creation of a Futures Lab to better predict policy impact over time, and the repurposing of the Trusteeship Council as an intergovernmental platform for the interests of succeeding generations.

These data points from across the globe are early indicators of a growing trend: the emergence of Future Generation Organizations (FGOs) concerned about future generations and looking to reflect those concerns in policy, governance and budgeting. I expect more FGOs to be created in the coming years and to see them flex new powers as they settle into their new roles as safeguarding the interests of future generations.

New Intergenerational Policy Frameworks

A related innovation to lengthen the time horizon of policy makers and the way they think about societal impact is the intergenerational fairness approach. In contrast to the short-term election-cycle driven approach so common in the United States, a number of countries and intergovernmental organizations such as the 37-member OECD are making commitments to hold themselves accountable for their impacts on future generations.

The School of International Futures (SOIF) has developed an Intergenerational Fairness Incubator and Framework and is working with a number of countries and intergovernmental organizations to operationalize this framework.

The policy assessment tool looks for unfairness caused by the policy in alternative future scenarios, considering each of the five aspects of unfairness captured in the definition below:

● Disadvantages people at any particular life stage;

● Disadvantages people at any period in time, present or future;

● Increases the chances of inequality being passed on through time;

● Restricts the choices of people in the future; and

● Moves society further away from its vision for the future.

One of the early adopters of the framework is Portugal. In 2022, Portugal’s president announced that he wanted to champion intergenerational solidarity and for his team to be trained in the tool. In the UK Parliament, another version of the framework, called Future Check, is being tested. There are also efforts underway to promote the use of intergenerational fairness principles in the European Union’s Green Deal.

Proxies for Future Generation Stakeholders

Although the focus on future generations is an important one, it’s difficult for members of the public to really “own” the perspective of future generations. One possible solution to this problem is role play. Over the last ten years, a new multidisciplinary movement in Japan called “future design”is using human proxies to represent the interests of future generations in order to ensure intergenerational fairness and solve tough long term problems.

The key insight gained from some real life experiments where individuals were playing the role of members of future generations is that they learned to think like an imaginary future person, with bolder ideas and a resolve to tackle tough challenges rather than defer them. By contrast, the people who represented current generations tended to think in terms of extensions of the status quo and took today’s constraints and challenges as givens. Figuring out how to give voice to the unborn and unrepresented is an important new area of work that reinforces other futures-oriented innovations, and could also enhance innovations in deliberative and participatory democracy. If role play can be this empowering and transformational, we need to experiment with it in the US to address a range of thorny and complex issues with generational impacts, like climate, inequality and poverty.

Stronger Foresight Capacity

There is growing recognition of the drawbacks of short-termism, reactive and crisis thinking, as well as incrementalism, particularly at this time of rapid change and complex problems. In response, several national governments and international organizations (e.g., UNESCO, OECD, and the European Union) have improved their foresight capacity, empowering more of their employees with the tools they need to anticipate multiple future scenarios, stress test their current policy and planning approaches, imagine desired futures, and increase the likelihood they can be realized.

For example, Policy Horizons Canada is a federal government organization that conducts foresight with a mandate to help the Canadian government develop robust future-oriented policy that can be more resilient in the face of disruptive change and build foresight literacy and capacity across the Canadian public service sector. In Finland, the government produces a futures oriented report every electoral cycle and incorporates foresight into its planning.

By contrast, the US has neither a centralized foresight nor a non-partisan centralized long term planning capacity. Instead, there are loose, voluntary networks of individuals trained in foresight across different agencies of the federal government (such as the Federal Foresight Community of Interest and the Public Sector Foresight Network) and there are pockets of foresight expertise in certain federal offices and agencies (e.g., Air Force, Coast Guard, Forest Service, General Accounting Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence). Few if any local or state governments have created senior roles that center the use of foresight techniques or an intergenerational orientation. However, there are signs of change in the air: some American cities are beginning to engage with the use of foresight and, at the state level, California 100 is building that capacity in California after earlier efforts in Hawaii showed promise but waned.

An Urgent Call to Become Futures-ready

We can no longer afford to operate on perpetual two and four year planning horizons based on electoral cycles and on the assumption that there will be no policy continuity across administrations.

We can no longer assume that the future will look like the past or even the present — doing so is negligence at best and malpractice at worst.

We can no longer afford to operate in a time of epochal uncertainty and change without a “futures-ready” mindset and the tools to imagine the best and the worst possible outcomes and everything in between, and then prepare for all eventualities.

These times demand leadership and governance for the future.

This essay is adapted from Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy, Democracy Funders Network, November 2022.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less