David Nevins interviews Graham Bodie, an internationally recognized expert on listening, about the National Week of Conversation: April 17 – 23, 2023.
Video: Repairing America’s broken democracy: Bridge Alliance members take action


David Nevins interviews Graham Bodie, an internationally recognized expert on listening, about the National Week of Conversation: April 17 – 23, 2023.

Harvard's Guy-Uriel Charles (left) listens to David Walker, Chair of the Federal Fiscal Sustainability Foundation. Fellow panelists (L-R) are Michael Farris, Convention of States Project; Samuel Fieldman, Wolf Pack; and Jim Rubens, FFSA and American Promise.
Voting is the anchor of democracy, as we are reminded every two years. But this anchor rests on unstable ground today, signaling that our political roots need examining too.
In the United States, the Constitution itself becomes the focus when serious problems prompt such foundational civic dives. Our current challenges may not be as severe as the Civil War or the excesses of the Gilded Age, which produced waves of amendments, but today’s erosion of our system of checks and balances requires us to revisit our constitutional underpinnings.
The good news is that such work is underway. Amending the Constitution is the aim of numerous grassroots initiatives, from term limits and money in politics to fiscal responsibility. Influential books on constitutional change are multiplying. Law schools and universities are conducting model constitutional conventions and the like to supplement classroom activities and research.
Over the first weekend in October, a one-of-a-kind gathering of scholars, activists, students, and citizens from across the political spectrum met at Harvard Law School to confer about constitutional change. Their priorities and positions differed widely, but they shared an interest in the never-used method of considering and proposing amendments—a convention called by 34 state legislatures.
Article V of the Constitution describes (too briefly for some) two methods for proposing amendments—congressional voting and a state-initiated convention. They are equally valid. The Framers explicitly included the latter method to give the people a way to change our foundational law when Congress could not or would not vote out such proposals.
Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig co-convened the VthePeople conference, noting that there is “growing recognition about the need for constitutional reform,” but that a “broken” Congress can’t help. He added that we need to “go back to the founding ideal of engaging in a process of constitutional craftsmanship” that is not left to congressional action or Supreme Court interpretation.
Conference participants heard from proponents and opponents of such a convention, as well as advocates of various amendment proposals. They also heard from international leaders whose countries have used citizen assemblies and public deliberative processes to strengthen their democratic decision-making. Their use in U.S. constitutional reform could address concerns about how such a convention might work since the Constitution itself is silent on convention rules, processes, or constraints. Assemblies could help select convention delegates, set the convention agenda, and inform how delegates vote.
A key fact that can allay concerns about a convention “going rogue” is that, like Congress, it can only propose amendments, which then must be ratified by 75% of the states. Even proposals to make amending the Constitution easier, such as by lowering the supermajority thresholds for both proposing and ratifying amendments (as emerged from the National Constitution Center’s own Drafting Project earlier this decade), would still have to earn the support of 38 states before taking effect. This external brake after the convention could also serve as an internal brake during it, as occurred at the inaugural Model Constitutional Convention at ASU in 2024.
An Article V convention would also help foster debate and deliberation among the public, a necessary but lengthy and messy part of producing constitutional change. Given that our political branches are proving incapable of tackling issues such as representational integrity and fiscal integrity, is the prospect of a convention not far-fetched? Or, if it becomes more realistic, would it prompt Congress to take up amendment proposals?
Lessig, who organized such a conference 15 years ago, was heartened by the participation of the international and citizen assembly leaders. “There are a lot of new things to think about.”
All this takes time. And it takes people working together. The National Constitution Center launched its “civic decade” program in 2026 to connect citizens to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, all of which mark their 250th anniversaries in 2037, 2037, and 2041, respectively. Perhaps elevating repair of the Constitution can emerge during this window too.
VthePeople student organizer Billy Hasley summarized it well: “An Article V convention is another path to reforming our Constitution—maybe harder, but likely more durable, and certainly more democratic.” If enough of us do the work needed to make it happen or prompt Congress to fulfill its constitutional reform responsibility, he’ll be proven correct.
But start by voting. Then think about the ground we drop that anchor into.
Rick LaRue is a Fulcrum Contributor who writes about the Constitution, amendments, and electoral structure at structurematters.org. He served as deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.
It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.
Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.
Meanwhile, the wealthiest 10% of households own roughly 87% of directly and indirectly held corporate equities and mutual-fund shares, as well as approximately two-thirds of total household wealth. The bottom half owns only a small single-digit percentage. Wealth derived from appreciating assets compounds faster—and is frequently taxed more favorably—than wages.
Hard work still matters, but it is no longer enough. Unless people acquire appreciating, income-producing assets early in life, they may remain financially insecure regardless of how steadily they work. Artificial intelligence, automation, age discrimination and periodic mass layoffs are likely to deepen that insecurity.
Social Security cannot solve the problem. Declining birth rates mean fewer workers supporting more retirees. Under current projections, the retirement trust fund will become unable to pay scheduled benefits during the 2030s, potentially requiring cuts of more than 20% unless Congress acts.
America therefore confronts three related problems: the transition from labor-generated prosperity to asset-generated wealth; falling birth rates partly driven by financial insecurity; and a retirement system approaching a funding crisis. A majority excluded from the asset economy will increasingly resent those who benefit from it, intensifying political polarization and making radical redistribution appear attractive.
Higher taxes and larger transfer programs do not address the underlying dynamic. Nor would Universal Basic Income. UBI would require enormous recurring expenditures while creating no corresponding asset. It treats insufficient income as the problem when the deeper problem is unequal ownership of the capital that generates wealth.
If America has become an asset-based economy, the logical response is to make asset ownership universal.
The recently created “Trump Accounts” point in the right direction by providing eligible children with a $1,000 investment account to which families, employers, and others may contribute. But $1,000 invested at 7% annually would grow to only about $15,000 after 40 years. A meaningful solution must be much larger.
Suppose every American child received an individually owned Birthright Account at birth, containing $35,000 invested in a diversified portfolio of American stocks and bonds. Assuming a 7% nominal annual return, 2.5% inflation, and low management fees, that account could grow over 50 years to approximately $300,000 in today’s purchasing power—or about $1 million in 2076 dollars.
The principal could not normally be withdrawn before age 50, and gains would be tax-free once the beneficiary reached that age. Parents, relatives, friends and employers could make additional tax-advantaged contributions. Even $50 a month could add approximately $79,000 in today’s purchasing power after 50 years.
With roughly 3.6 million births annually, the initial federal investment would be about $126 billion per year, plus modest administration and brokerage costs. This is substantial, but it should not be viewed like Medicaid or another consumption expense. It would be an annual asset purchase: a national investment held in private accounts for American citizens.
The money would begin working immediately. A permanent annual flow of $126 billion into American securities would provide patient capital to businesses, increase demand for Treasury and corporate bonds, and modestly reduce market volatility. During recessions, the program would continue buying, allowing accounts to acquire more shares at depressed prices.
Over several decades, the accounts could accumulate trillions of dollars. That capital would belong not to foreign governments, large institutions or a small affluent minority, but to ordinary Americans. After 30 years, the program could hold nearly $12 trillion in nominal assets, making its beneficiaries one of the largest ownership constituencies in corporate America.
The program should not be financed by printing money or simply adding to the national debt. Instead, several dedicated sources could be combined.
First, a U.S. sovereign wealth fund could receive income from federal mineral, oil and gas rights, spectrum auctions, government equity holdings, surplus federal property and federal loan portfolios.
Second, a 0.01% levy on secondary-market purchases of stocks, bonds, exchange-traded funds and selected derivatives could generate an estimated 30–35 billion annually. It would add only 50 cents to a $5,000 ETF purchase.
Third, an “AI productivity dividend” could dedicate part of the corporate tax revenue arising from highly automated, exceptionally profitable businesses to the citizens whose employment prospects automation may weaken.
Fourth, federal research grants could sometimes include small public equity stakes in recipient companies, producing revenue when successful firms go public. Carefully verified reductions in waste, fraud and administrative costs could provide a smaller supplementary share.
The accounts would require strong statutory protection against political raids, cancellation or diversion. Assets should remain individually owned and professionally managed, with strict custody safeguards. Limited borrowing against a minority of the account might be permitted for a first home or a privately financed business, but the central purpose—creating long-term financial security—must be protected.
Birthright Accounts would not eliminate inequality. Affluent parents would still provide their children with greater advantages. The proposal would instead close the enormous gap between inheriting assets and beginning adult life with nothing.
Every American would become an investor at birth and would eventually own a share of the companies whose productivity generates national wealth. That ownership could encourage financial education, entrepreneurship and public support for policies that sustain long-term economic growth. It could also reduce future dependence on Social Security, housing assistance and other transfers.
Most importantly, the proposal addresses economic inequality at its source. Rather than repeatedly redistributing income after wealth has been created, it distributes ownership of the assets that create wealth in the first place.
The economy’s operating system has changed. A policy designed for an age when wages reliably produced security can no longer meet the needs of an economy in which capital appreciation increasingly determines who prospers.
The choice is ultimately straightforward: America can leave future generations an ownership stake in the nation’s productive wealth—or leave them only an increasingly unpayable share of its debt.
Paul Maglione is an American entrepreneur and writer currently living in Europe. He writes mostly about politics, society, and entertainment.

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.
We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?
1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape
Critics, including Trump, have a point when they say Washington has too many regulations. Rules, like weeds, accumulate over time. With each passing year, some become outdated, others duplicate existing requirements, and for still others, costs start to exceed benefits they once provided. Businesses, state and local governments, and ordinary citizens can spend an enormous amount of time trying to comply with them.
Trump claims that eliminating these rules is a major goal of the administration. Trump's 10-to-1 policy requires federal agencies to eliminate at least ten regulations for every new one they issue. The administration boasts it has already surpassed that goal. This is evidence, according to Trump, that the government is becoming more efficient.
Few would argue with getting rid of rules that no longer serve a useful purpose. Indeed, some should have disappeared years ago. But fewer rules don't automatically mean better government. Food safety rules, environmental regulations, and protections for workers exist because there were things government needed to protect. Getting rid of the rule doesn't get rid of the problem it was intended to address.
2. Rules Make Government Work
Consider Head Start. The program provides important services to children with disabilities. Federal rules govern how children are screened, how they are referred for additional help, how parents are involved, and how Head Start works with other agencies. These may sound like bureaucratic details. But they are also how good intentions get translated into actual services for a child.
Now Trump wants to get rid of many of these requirements, and he frames it as giving local programs more freedom. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Why should Washington tell every Head Start program exactly how to do its job? The problem is what happens next. Without common requirements, services that children receive in one community may be radically different from those available in another. A right isn't worth very much if whether you receive it depends on your ZIP code.
Environmental regulations present a similar problem. Business owners have complained about their cost for decades, and some of those complaints are justified. But these rules weren't created to make things more expensive for businesses. They were intended to keep pollution out of the air and water. Common sense dictates getting rid of regulations that don't work. But eliminating the rule doesn't eliminate the pollution that gave rise to it in the first place.
Food safety provides another example. This summer, thousands of people became sick in a Cyclospora outbreak linked to Mexican iceberg lettuce. Hundreds were hospitalized, and two people died. We can't say that deep cuts at the FDA caused the outbreak. But those cuts have led FDA staffing to fall and foreign food inspections have declined. Given how much of our food comes from outside the United States, that's something worth worrying about.
Most of us don't think much about food inspectors until thousands of people get sick. Then suddenly the bureaucrats don't seem quite so unnecessary.
3. A Weaker Bureaucracy Can Mean a Stronger President
Something else is going on here. Trump isn't simply getting rid of regulations; he is bringing more of the federal government under his control in the process. White House oversight has been extended to independent agencies, while civil service rules have been changed for some federal workers involved in policymaking. The administration says this makes bureaucrats more accountable to an elected president and hence, indirectly, the people. It also gives the president more control over the workforce who carry out the law.
The Framers would have understood the problem. They distrusted concentrated power, no matter who exercised it. That is why the Constitution divides power among Congress, the president, and the courts and then gives each branch ways to check the others' overreach. Madison wrote about this in Federalist 47. Putting legislative, executive, and judicial power in the same hands, he said, was the “very definition of tyranny.”
This can make American government maddeningly inefficient. That's not an accident. The Framers were willing to sacrifice some efficiency to make it harder for one person or institution to dominate the government. If the Framers lived today, they might say the system's inefficiency was a feature, not a bug.
Trump is attempting to move us in the other direction. Giving a president more control over federal agencies and career officials makes it easier to carry out his agenda. For Trump's supporters, that's part of the appeal. They elected him to change Washington and don't want unelected bureaucrats getting in his way.
But there is a price. A president who faces fewer restraints has more freedom to act on his own. That may work fine when you agree with the person in the White House. It looks rather different when you don't. Fewer checks and balances also mean fewer opportunities to catch mistakes before they become policy.
This is where deregulation becomes about something larger than red tape. Concentrating power in the presidency doesn't by itself make a government authoritarian. But it removes some of the obstacles that make authoritarian government harder. And once presidential power expands, it rarely goes back to what it was before. That is how the threat of authoritarianism grows.
Robert Cropf is a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University.

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address with a vision of democracy that has endured for more than a century:
“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
More than 160 years later, the United States must confront a difficult question: Does our government meet its own standard for a democracy?
"Of the People"
A government “of the people” must be a governing body that reflects the population it serves in both composition and lived reality. But even beyond race and gender, Congress is operating from entirely different realities than the people it represents. One member of Congress is over the age of 90, born before the first lobotomy was ever performed in America. Nineteen members are over 80, graduating high school before the Civil Rights Act passed (1964), before the Supreme Court struck down sex-based discrimination (1971), and before the moon landing (1969). In other words, nearly 20 people writing federal law today came of age before many of the rights and protections we now consider baseline ever existed.
Nearly 100 members are in their seventies, already adults before the internet was invented (1990), before the first Black Miss America (1983), and before the wave of national conversations that followed Columbine (1999). Another 137 members are in their sixties, born during the last lobotomy operation in America, and shaped politically long before the first woman became Speaker of the House or before same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide. Meanwhile, there are only 37 members in their thirties and just one person under 30.
Beyond fixed demographics, members of Congress are also overwhelmingly affluent compared to the average American. As of 2021, the median net worth of a congressmember was $1.28 million. with roughly 1 in 10 members holding enough wealth to place them in the top 1 percent, In the Senate alone, at least 73 percent of members are millionaires in a country where only about 7 percent of people are. Additionally, the wealth of Congresspeople continues to increase. Even during the height of COVID, while millions of Americans worried about losing their jobs, members of Congress were making over $150 million in stock trades.
And running for office has become prohibitively expensive in ways that push most people out before they ever begin. In 2024 alone, House candidacies cost nearly $1.9 billion, Senate candidacies another $1.6 billion, and presidential campaigns cost over $2.6 billion. Individual congressional races can cost anywhere from hundreds of thousands of dollars to well over $10 million, demanding money and access to wealthy donor networks, as well as the ability to campaign full time without financial insecurity. For many candidates, fundraising itself becomes a full-time job. Representative Maxwell Frost had to quit his full-time job, work 10 to 12 hours a day on his campaign, max out his credit cards, and drive for Uber just to get by during his campaign. After winning, his credit was so damaged that he struggled to rent an apartment.
While wealth doesn’t negate the capacity for empathy or effective leadership, it does shape perspective. When pathways to office are only accessible to those with certain financial means, the range of lived experiences represented in government narrows accordingly. If a system no longer allows for the rise of ordinary leaders, it forces a reconsideration of what representation truly means. A democracy that cannot produce leaders from ordinary life has ceased to be governed by ordinary people.
"By the People"
A government is not democratic simply because elections occur, but because citizens possess meaningful power over their outcomes.
For much of the twentieth century, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 served as one of the most effective tools for preventing racial discrimination in voting. That is, until 2013, when Shelby County v. Holder struck down the coverage formula determining which jurisdictions were required to obtain federal approval before changing their voting laws. Within hours of the ruling, Texas announced it would implement a strict voter identification law that had previously been blocked because the state failed to demonstrate it wouldn’t harm Black and Latino voters. Mississippi and Alabama quickly implemented voter ID requirements of their own, while North Carolina enacted what a federal court later described as a voter suppression law targeting African Americans with "almost surgical precision," reducing early voting capacity, eliminating same-day registration, and imposing new identification requirements. Between 2012 and 2018, counties formerly subject to federal oversight closed at least 1,688 polling places.
Furthermore, modern gerrymandering has allowed politicians to manipulate representation before voters ever enter the booth. Traditionally, states redrew congressional maps once every ten years, but since the summer of 2025, 10 states have changed their congressional maps mid-decade, a rate the National Conference of State Legislatures describes having not seen since the 1800s.
And once again, these limitations are further compounded by the increasing centrality of money in American elections. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court ruled corporations, unions, and other organizations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political advocacy. In the last presidential election before Citizens United, outside groups spent roughly $574 million on federal elections. By 2024, outside spending reached nearly $4.5 billion, while Super PAC spending exploded from $62.6 million in 2010 to more than $4.1 billion. This money is concentrated among a tiny group of wealthy donors, where the share of federal election spending coming from the top 100 donors rose from just 1.5 percent before Citizens United to roughly 14 to 16 percent.
Democracy does not disappear all at once. It wears away piece by piece with every barrier to voting, every manipulated district, and every dollar that buys greater political influence that shifts power away from citizens and toward those already positioned to wield it. Leaving a democracy that preserves the ritual of elections while steadily hollowing out their meaning.
"For the People"
Of the three principles, “for the people” is arguably the most essential. Even if representation is imperfect, access to office is uneven, and participation in elections is constrained, a democracy might still claim legitimacy if those in power act in accordance with the needs and expressed will of the people. However, Congress only aligns with the public opinion on major issues only 55% of the time.
Importantly, the dying bills are those affecting people’s livelihoods and bills Americans have supported with vigor. Pew Research found that 62% of Americans supported raising the federal minimum wage to $15. Navigator Research found that 76% of Americans want Congress to create a national paid family and medical leave program. APM Research Lab found that 86% of Americans supported universal background checks for firearm sales. KFF found that only 82% of Americans wanted Congress to increase Medicaid spending, or keep spending the same. Nearly four years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), Pew Research found that 60% of Americans still said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Despite this, these proposals have repeatedly struggled to become federal law. Meanwhile, tax policies disproportionately benefitting higher-income households, reductions in social spending, and efforts to weaken programs like Medicaid continue to receive serious consideration.
The people are not confused about what they need. They are asking for safer communities, livable wages, paid time off to care for their families, affordable health care, and basic control over their own bodies. But we are met with a governing system that can hear the public clearly and still chooses to act in their own best interest.
American democracy has never been fully realized. From its founding, America has struggled to live up to the very principles it proclaims. And yet, the defining story of American democracy has never been perfection, but expansion through constitutional amendments and social movements.
The truth is that every generation inherits two Americas: the nation that exists and the nation it claims to be. The distance between those two is the measure of our democracy, and our democratic legitimacy is determined by whether we are deepening the divide or caring enough to turn around and close the gap.
The phrase “of the people, by the people, for the people” is a measure by which democratic systems should be evaluated, and when necessary, challenged. When a government fails to meet that standard, we must hold them accountable. Democracies collapse when citizens mistake democratic symbols for democratic substance, therefore our responsibility cannot also be symbolic. It means practical actions and voting with the seriousness of a people who understand that public officials work for the public. They are not above being challenged, called out, organized against, or voted out. Because a true democracy does not ask the people to endure leaders who fail them. It gives the people the power to replace them.
Ashley Staggers serves as Director of the Fostering Youth Success Alliance (FYSA) at Children's Aid, where she leads statewide policy, advocacy, youth engagement, and partnership efforts to improve outcomes for young people with foster care experience.