From Braver Seders to the Catholic belief that we need not fear the truth, three Braver Angels leaders talk about how their respective religious traditions inspire their bridge-building work. They explore the spiritual side of Braver Angels, and how we can learn from the insights of each particular tradition
A roll of "voted" stickers.
The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?
An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.
One continuing and deeply problematic reality is the abysmal level of voter participation itself. According to the respected University of Florida Elections Project, as of November 30, 156 million people voted, out of nearly 245 million eligible citizens—a participationrate of 63.86%. Internationally, among advanced democracies, the U.S. ranks well in the bottom half, and this is after hundreds of millions were spent on “GOTV” by all sides to turn out “our” vote and more on negative ads, designed to keep “their” voters home.
Low voting turnout really matters. Every community and voting group has issues that need governmental action but the government isn’t equally responsive to those needs. Study after study has shown that policies at every level of government are skewed toward groups who always vote at high levels and consistently undervalue ‘low propensity’ voters, age groups, and communities. This skew in responsiveness is one major cause of the alienation and mistrust many now feel toward the government.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
It really doesn’t have to be this way, and it can be substantially fixed by public policy. The ‘proof of concept’ is in the25 democratic countries around the world that use universal voting: requiring citizens to participate in elections as a matter of law. Belgium first enacted universal voting in 1893. The majority of Latin American countries use universal voting as well, including Uruguay, which turned out nearly 90% of its voters inits neck-and-neck presidential election this year. Australia has had universal voting for exactly 100 years, and they have seen great success. Not only is the system extremely popular and part of an engaged and celebratory civic culture but 90% of Australian citizens have voted in every election since its implementation. There may also be a correlation between full voter participation and economic benefit for a country’s average citizens. Is it a coincidence that thethree countries in the world with the smallest gap
between average wealth and median wealth use universal voting? Maybe, but it makes sense that when everyone participates, their government delivers for them.
In the U.S., there is a very strong analogy with jury duty. American citizens are required to serve on juries if called, so that the jury pool, writ large, is a full and fair reflection of the community as a whole, as jurors judge guilt or innocence and assess punishment. Mandatory jury service is a fully accepted part of our civic culture. Adding a civic duty requirement to vote has the same logic. We want, or we should want, the decisions on who governs us and under what laws we live to be decided by everyone, not by an electorate with nearly 40 percent of its members absent.
Universal voting, if enacted, would immediately and dramatically increase voting participation, and the actual voting electorate would be far more inclusive of our population as a whole. In addition, it would change the dysfunctional incentive structure of campaigns. If everyone is going to vote, campaigns will have to speak to everyone, rather than—at enormous cost—identifying and turning out their own voters and keeping the opposition’s base home. Universal voting would not eliminate polarization but it would definitely force parties and candidates to appeal to everyone with a more broadly persuasive message. Most importantly, it would make government at all levels more responsive to all citizens and not to ‘high propensity’ voting blocs.
Moving forward on universal voting does not require a constitutional amendment. It does not require federal legislation. Every state has the ability to enact universal voting, and in many states, counties and cities can do so as well. Implementation might differ from city to city or state to state, as they play their role as ‘laboratories of democracy’.
It seems as though we have three choices when it comes to participation levels in our elections. We can accept the status quo, which means that only 64 percent of our country’s eligible voters will participate in presidential elections and under 50 percent in Congressional and state elections. That will be as good as we can get. Or, candidates, parties, and super PACs can spend ever-spiraling amounts of money on marginally consequential efforts to turn out micro-targeted voters.
Or, we can think outside the box, learn from the experiences of other countries, and ensure that when we hold an election, everyone will come. We believe the time has come for a real discussion of universal voting.
Miles Rapoport is the Director of 100% Democracy, former secretary of the state of Connecticut, and the co-author with E.J. Dionne of 100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting.
Raaheela Ahmed is the National Legislative and Organizing Director of 100% Democracy and a former member of the Prince Georges County Board of Education.
A statue of Lady Justice.
My neighbor was brutally attacked outside of his home one Friday night, when another resident, blasting loud music, yelled out his accusations, “You have been going through my things, you have been breaking into my home.” My neighbor gently told this man, “No, I have not gone through your things. Please lower your music.” His reply was a beating, fists that did great damage.
His wife was in the driveway, frozen. Horrified. Scared. She called the police and ran to her husband as the man fled.
My neighbor’s next memory begins at the County Hospital. His nose and several ribs were broken. He’s home now, bruised, bandaged—and still terrified. He asked why the police hadn’t acted. He had to call the police after the assault. He had to send them photos of his broken bones. The crime is a felony, but the police have no leads. I told my neighbor that this is too familiar in my field of work. When you are a victim, you become everything: The survivor, the patient, the detective, the crime scene investigator, the narrator.
The police asked him, why didn’t you have a camera? Why didn’t you let your dog out? Classic victim blaming.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Eventually, when he had to identify possible suspects, he was stressed: Could he recognize his attacker? Filing a civil restraining order was impossible because the police had not yet investigated the incident—or identified a suspect.
Welcome to my work, I said. Welcome to my world.
It is exhausting to be a victim.
Having to fight for your own survival is a tale as old as time. I hear it every day, and not just at work.
My neighbor’s story is far from unique. A teenager I know was the victim of a fight at school; her parents pushed the school for accommodations after the school did nothing. When I was in college, a friend was assaulted by her doctor. Years later, the burden to testify, to come forward, to try to stop him, was hers. Another friend suffered a beating outside of his place of employment. He had to track down security camera footage just to get the police to pay attention.
I know because I have practiced domestic violence law since 2004. Over the decades, the story is the same, always what the victim could or should have done differently.
Victim-blaming in the public sphere is brutal. Imagine when it happens at home. By your loved ones. Or by those who claim to love you. The blaming magnifies.
“Why didn’t you speak up?” They ask. “Why didn’t you tell anyone? Why did you marry that person?” Why why why.
A big part of our work is teaching survivors that the system is not fair. In the pursuit of justice, the system can hurt you more. Even in a crisis, you have to be your own advocate.
Plenty of information intended for people who experience domestic violence was applicable to my neighbor’s situation. I sharedall the information I hadon victim restitution, relocation assistance, security cameras, how to advocate with law enforcement, how to file a restraining order, and more. As helpful as the information might be, it forced him to take the time that he should have used for healing from the physical and emotional damage to become his own advocate. Even my offer rang hollow because all my well-intentioned advice shifted the burden from the authorities to my neighbor, the victim. I am proud to lead an organization that puts survivors first—but even I unintentionally burdened a victim, who should have been supported during a difficult time.
We can and must remove barriers to accessing justice.
During President Trump’s first administration, the failure to pursue white-collar crimes and cuts in the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and related government funding had a massive impact on victims of crime, who now find it much more difficult to get access to legal aid. The Crime Victims Fund (CVF) did not pass the committee last session. We have another opportunity now to secure much-needed funding for victims of crime. Call or email your representatives now and urge them to pass this vital legislation. A similar law was enacted in California in 2024 to address the reduction in federal funding. It came into effect after a group of advocates urged their legislators to find funding to continue critical services—like keeping shelters and other related services for survivors running. Other states can use a similar model in the meantime. Congress must enact this law to continue to protect survivors.
On February 7, 2025, the Office on Violence Against Women, withdrew funding opportunities that had previously been available -- sustaining the toxic trend of blaming the victim.
Carmen McDonald is an attorney and the Executive Director of theSurvivor Justice Center; she is a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEdProject.
Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.
Trump’s nomination of fossil fuel executive Chris Wright as Energy Secretary inspired this Democratic bill.
The bill
The BIG OIL from the Cabinet Act would bar fossil fuel industry executives or lobbyists from certain politically-appointed administration positions for 10 years after leaving that private sector job.
The legislation would bar them from serving in 19 specific positions that deal with energy or the environment in some form – including Secretaries of Energy, State, Interior, Agriculture, and Transportation, plus Administrators of NASA and the EPA.
It would also bar them from serving in any politically-appointed positions (including at levels below the actual department head) for nine entire departments or agencies.
The acronym BIG OIL in the title stands for Banning In Government Oil Industry Lobbyists.
The Senate bill was introduced on January 21 by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).
Context
President Trump’s Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, was the founder and CEO of fracking company Liberty Energy. Wright seems poised to pursue energy policies favoring the oil, coal, and natural gas industries, which Democrats largely oppose on environmental grounds.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Wright was confirmed by the Senate in February by 59-38, with Republicans approving him unanimously and Democrats largely opposing him by 8-38. The eight Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents who crossed party lines: Michael Bennet (CO), Ruben Gallego (AZ), Maggie Hassan (NH), Martin Heinrich (NM), John Hickenlooper (CO), Angus King (ME), Ben Ray Luján (NM), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH).
Trump’s first term also featured fossil fuel executives serving in top positions, such as ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State in 2017-18.
What supporters say
The bill’s supporters argue that top federal policymakers should be free of undue financial or occupational influence, particularly given recent natural disasters.
“Especially in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires and more frequent and dangerous disasters fueled by climate change, we can't afford to have a fossil fuel CEO like Chris Wright help the industry capture our federal agencies further for oil profits,” Sen. Markey said in a press release. “We must have government agencies helmed by responsible, qualified executives without blatant conflicts of interest.”
Or as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) put it during the confirmation hearing for Trump’s EPA nominee Lee Zeldin, after a phone audibly rang: “That was the fossil fuel industry.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that that a fossil fuel executive may actually be the most qualified person, given how expensive and unpopular they contend that Democrats’ environmental policies are.
“If we really want an all-of-the-above energy policy for our nation, we need people like Chris Wright, who understand all aspects of energy and have the knowledge and capability needed to drive the latest, greatest technology and truly make the U.S. energy-dominant,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “I can’t think of anyone better able to do just that, based on his training, education, accomplishments, and experience.”
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted one fellow Democratic cosponsor: Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). It now awaits an unlikely vote in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, controlled by Republicans.
Sen. Markey previously introduced the bill in 2019, but it never received a committee vote. Republicans also controlled the chamber at the time.
No House companion version appears to have been introduced yet.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.Congress Bill Spotlight: renaming Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”
Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term
The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been head-spinning. President Trump and his team were well-prepared to launch their policy agenda, signing over 50 executive orders, the most in a president's first month in more than 40 years. A major focus has been economic policy, first with immigration raids, which were quickly followed by announcements of tariffs on imports from America’s biggest trade partners.
The tariff announcements have followed a meandering and confusing course. President Trump announced the first tariffs on February 1, but within 24 hours, he suspended the tariffs on Mexico and Canada in favor of “negotiations.” Mexico and Canada agreed to enforce their borders better to stop migrants and fentanyl imports, which the Trump administration called a victory. Despite the triumphalist rhetoric, the enforcement measures were substantially the same as what both countries were already planning to do.
Then, on February 10, the president announced new tariffs on steel and aluminum, and this time added the European Union, Brazil, and other countries to the list with Mexico, Canada, and China. Like the boy who cried wolf, it’s hard for the world to know if Trump will stick, withdraw, or add to these new tariffs.
Looking deeper, it seems clear that the tariffs are used more as political theater than an actual new economic policy. For example, in the case of Canada, less than 2% of fentanyl imports come from our northern neighbor. In fact, Canada imports almost as much fentanyl from the United States as the US imports from Canada. And the vast majority of people smuggling fentanyl into the US are native-born Americans, not immigrants.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
So, is Trump's strategy to use tariffs to keep the targeted countries in a state of perpetual uncertainty? Perplexingly, Trump and his key trade advisors are no longer talking much about two of his original rationales for tariffs, namely to revive US manufacturing and provide revenue to the US government.
Indeed, Scott Bessent, Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury, has argued that tariffs could be “a useful tool for achieving the president’s foreign policy objectives,” not economic goals.
However, at this rate, the Trump policy may amount to little more than a one-time instrument of coercion and possibly have a limited impact. Once you use it, the targeted country will not only retaliate with tariffs against the US but also look for other markets and trading partners for its businesses and goods.
Not surprisingly, even some US business leaders have begun to complain that navigating the on-again-off-again tariffs is making it more challenging to run their own businesses.
While the Trump tariff policy so far looks unfocused and fairly ineffective, it would be a mistake to think it is not impacting. Amidst the roller coaster uncertainty, another more subtle economic shock is occurring that could deeply impact global commerce.
That’s because the mere threat of tariffs is a direct repudiation of the free-trade policies that have guided the bipartisan “Washington consensus” for over 30 years, ever since US President Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in December 1993. The Washington consensus has guided Democrats and Republicans in the global economic policy of the EU, Japan, China, Brazil, India, and more moderate-sized nations.
Now, each of the targeted nations must decide whether to retaliate by slapping their tariffs on the US and launching a trade war in which each country will seek other aligned nations to foster more closely integrated networks and supply chains.
So Trump’s “I’ll blow your house down” threats of tariffs could dramatically impact global economic policy, and not necessarily for the better. This could well return global trade to the mercantilist days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in which the global rules were more chaotic and transactional. If the US and other governments follow through with harder-hitting tariffs, that may launch a new era of trade protectionism that the world has not seen since World War II.
Historically, tariffs were usually deployed to protect certain key industries from foreign competitors — for example, a surge of imported tires from China that hurt US tire makers or Richard Nixon promising Japan he would return Okinawa, which hosted several US military bases, but only if Japan sent fewer textiles to the US.
Trump's approach is a clear departure since he threatens to deploy tariffs to strongarm concessions over an expanding range of issues, whether immigration, fentanyl, or even territorial expansion, such as in Greenland, Panama, or Canada.
This has already prompted China’s Ministry of Commerce to protest that the Trump administration’s tariffs “seriously undermine the rules-based multilateral trading system, damage the foundation of economic and trade cooperation…and disrupt the stability of global industry supply chains.” So, in an odd twist, the Trump administration has allowed China’s authoritarian government to position itself as the reasonable voice of trade balance and fairness, an advocate for the nations targeted by Trump.
At this rate, other countries may come to believe the US is an unreliable trading partner. However, it is still early in Trump’s term, and the future is difficult to predict. A reasonable alternative policy would be to levy limited tariffs to incentivize specific trading partnerships.
But even that is a double-edged sword, with some trade experts calling tariffs a “fruit and vegetable tax” as it could increase prices for many grocery items since Mexico is Americans’ source for 69% of fresh vegetables and 51% of fresh fruit. Canada provides $125 billion in crude oil and petroleum products. The EU provides pharmaceuticals, machinery, and autos, and China ships consumer electronics, autos, plastics, and much much more.
In the end, Trump’s tariff threats may backfire if $15 eggs appear on grocery store shelves before the midterm elections. High prices defeated the last president, and they could well defeat this one, too.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
