RepresentWomen's mission is to strengthen our democracy by advancing reforms that break down barriers to ensure more women can run, win, serve, and lead. More women in elected and appointed positions at every level of government will strengthen our democracy by making it more representative, reviving bi-partisanship and collaboration, improving the deliberative process, encouraging a new style of leadership, and building greater trust in our elected bodies. RepresentWomen accomplishes its mission in these 4 ways: conducts research to track representation and assess best practices; educates PACs, donors, party leaders & elected officials about reforms to advance women's representation & leadership; advocates at the local, state and federal levels to adopt institutional reforms; forges strategic collaborative partnerships to build a lasting & successful movement for gender parity.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Project 2025 policies are on the Nov. 5 ballot
Sep 18, 2024
Corbin is professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.
It’s becoming crystal clear, as we near the Nov. 5 presidential election, that voters need to seriously check out the radical government reformation policies contained within the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. Here’s why.
The right-wing think tank has written not one, not two, but nine “Mandate for Leadership” documents for Republican presidential candidates, with its first playbook published in 1981. The Heritage Foundation spent $22 million —serious money — in 2023 to create Project 2025 for Donald Trump to implement.
Trump’s claim he knows nothing about Project 2025 is questionable to say the least. The Heritage Foundation’s website notes Trump “fully embraced” 64 percent of its 321 policy reform recommendations during his 2017-2021 presidency.
Heritage also compiled a database of Republicans whom Trump could hire if elected in 2016. Sixty-six of them served in his first administration, including five key Trump acolytes: Betsy DeVos, secretary of education; Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency; Mick Mulvaney, White House chief of staff; Rick Perry, secretary of energy; and Jeff Sessions, attorney general.
Trump asked the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society to compile a list of 21 potential Supreme Court nominees. John Malcolm prepared the list for Heritage and when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Politico referred to Malcolm as “the man who picked the next Supreme Court justice.”.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In a Sept. 7 entry in Letters from an American, Boston College history professor Heather Cox Richardson wrote that on Sept. 5, Trump — at an event with Sean Hannity of Fox News – “embraced the key element of Project 2025 that calls for a dictatorial leader to take over the U.S. That document maintains that ‘personnel is policy’ and that the way to achieve all that the Christian nationalists want is to fire the nonpartisan civil servants currently in place and put their own people into office.”
She also noted that, during a rally in Mosinee, Wis., Trump publicly embraced Project 2025’s promise to eliminate the Department of Education.
Twenty-three videos have been prepared to coach future Trump administration appointees on how to implement Project 2025. Twenty-nine of the 36 speakers in the videos worked for Trump or his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance.
At least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration were involved in writing Project 2025 (CNN, July 11).
CBS News identified 270 of Project 2025’s policy proposals that matched Trump’s past political and current campaign rhetoric.
Evidence is replete the Heritage Foundation and the Trump-Vance ticket are joined at the hip and, therefore, Project 2025’s extremist policies are implicitly on the Nov. 5 ballot.
Two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans are opposed to Project 2025’s extremist policy proposals. And no former GOP presidents or vice presidents have endorsed Trump.
Voters need to find out on their own accord what outlandish policies the Heritage Foundation wants Trump and Vance to implement. I am grateful that The Fulcrum, a cross-partisan publication not associated with the Harris-Walz campaign, has become a platform for an analysis of Project 2025, having published over 30 op-eds devoted to analyzing Project 2025’s content.
The entire series is accessible for free.
The Fulcrum contributors who delve into the nitty-gritty details of Project 2025 policies are cross-partisan and are not associated with the Harris-Walz campaign.
Here’s a partial list of Project 2025 policy topics that have been thoroughly examined, individually, in The Fulcrum: Department of Education, Christian nationalism, Department of Defense, Federal Reserve, Department of Energy, Parents Bill of Rights, Department of Veteran Affairs, Education Savings Accounts, Department of Homeland Security, Voting Rights Act, Department of Labor, Christo-fascist manifesto, Department of Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of State, Federal Communications Commission, Department of Justice and Schedule F (firing civil servants).
Since Trump implemented 64 percent of Heritage Foundation’s 2017-2021 manifesto and knowing he’s not a policy wonk, odds are great — if elected — he will embrace the latest version of Project 2025 lock, stock and barrel. Remember, past actions are the best predictor of future behavior.
Let’s agree that the soul of America is democracy. On Nov. 5, will you embrace Project 2025’s extremist-oriented policies that threaten our form of government or support well-reasoned policies that protect and preserve our constitutional rights?
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The American idea: A Constitution Day conversation with Jeffrey Rosen
Sep 17, 2024
LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.
Few people are better able to relate the U.S. Constitution and its history to today's civic challenges than Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
In this Constitution Day conversation, we connected the "American Idea" at its roots to the present. We also highlighted the lessons that still resonate from the work of the nation's founders.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Rick LaRue: What stands out from your experiences on Constitution Day?
Jeffrey Rosen: The most inspiring memories I have of Constitution Day are without question participating in naturalization ceremonies. We do it every year at theNational Constitution Center. There is never a dry eye in the house when you hear speeches from the most eloquent spokespeople for the American idea — new citizens. It’s just a privilege to participate.
RL: What’s next for the Constitution Center?
JR: This Constitution Day we are launching our newConstitution 101 class in collaboration with theKahn Academy. It is the Kahn Academy’s first civics course and we think it will be a game changer, making the Constitution Center’s nonpartisan approach to constitutional education available to hundreds of thousands of high school students for free. That is the kick-off for our initiatives leading up toAmerica250 in 2026. We are creating a new civics tool kit on the core principles of the Declaration [of Independence] and the Constitution and the American idea — liberty, equality, democracy, separation of powers, federalism and the Bill of Rights — that will help learners of all ages relate these principles to current questions in American life.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
RL: Is there an underappreciated delegate to the Constitutional Convention whom you think should be more recognized?
JR: There’s the great James Wilson, the apostle of popular sovereignty. It was Wilson who came up with the idea that we the people of the United States, rather than we the people of the several states, were sovereign. There’s Gouverneur Morris, the most eloquent opponent of slavery at the convention. And George Mason, whose opposition to the Constitution led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
RL: Are there other standouts?
JR: James Madison, because he understood the dangers of faction and the central importance of moderation, compromise and listening to differing points of view. He is the most important framer of the Constitution, but George Washington is the most important delegate to the Constitutional Convention because of the quiet force of his authority. Had he not shown up, then we wouldn’t have a Constitution.
RL: Is there an amendment that stands out for you?
JR: Amendments are determined by “we the people.” We love them all. If you have to choose, it would have to be the First Amendment, dedicated to what Jefferson called the illimitable freedom of the human mind. It’s so inspiring to see the founders’ devotion to freedom of conscience embodied in all five freedoms of the First Amendment.
RL: The conventional wisdom right now, although it’s cracking a bit, is that it’s impossible to amend the Constitution. Do you agree?
JR: We’ll see, Things change fast. … It’s true that our politics have become extremely polarized and therefore it’s hard to mobilize a consensus even around structural amendments, but politics can change, so there’s no reason to think the Constitution has in fact become unamendable.
RL: There are partisan initiatives to try to call a constitutional convention and, with some exceptions, equally partisan opposition or concern. What are your thoughts about this?
JR: We posted some great debates about whether to hold a constitutional convention. The arguments in favor include that it is hard to get amendments through Congress, and therefore a convention might better represent the views of the majority of the American people. The argument against a convention is that it could go rogue. Madison was very opposed to holding another convention on the grounds that it had been a miracle that the first one succeeded, and a second one might undo its good work. Opponents of a convention today fear that it would be subject to the same dysfunction as state legislatures and could subvert constitutional values. The counterargument is that you need three-quarters of the states to ratify the special convention’s work, and therefore any unusual proposals would be checked at the ratification process. Just as Madison feared another convention, Jefferson thought we should have a convention every 19 years. Much depends on whether you share Jefferson’s faith in direct democracy or Madison’s skepticism of it.
RL: Your recent book, “The Pursuit of Happiness,” marvelously touches upon the intellectual roots of our system and the role and value of virtue (perhaps considered “character” today). Each chapter highlights one founder for each of the 13 classical virtues that Ben Franklin cherished. Any one you’d like to mention?
JR: That would be John Quincy Adams. For me, he most inspiringly embodies the classical ideal of self-mastery, self-improvement and using your powers of reason to overcome your unreasonable passions and emotions. His story of recovering from his defeat at the presidency, as well as the tragic suicide of his oldest son, and reinventing himself as the greatest white abolitionist of his age is unmatched in American history.
RL: The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of course will be followed in 11 years by the 250th anniversary of the Constitution, 2037. That will be a big Constitution Day. It won’t be as big as the Declaration’s anniversary, but how do you envision it being marked?
JR: Well, we hope that 2037 will be as big as 2026, and in fact we view the path from ’26 to ’37 as a decade of commemorating the American Constitution and the American idea. The Constitution is the silver frame around the Declaration’s apple of gold, as Lincoln put it, and it is urgently important for Americans to view these documents’ anniversaries as part of the same story of freedom and to think about celebrating them together.
RL: Any thoughts for how we can all observe Constitution Day?
JR: Learning and reading about the American idea is the best way to celebrate the anniversary.
RL: Thank you, Jeff.
Keep ReadingShow less
How to win a bar bet on election night
Sep 17, 2024
Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”
The odds are you don’t go to sleep at night and dream of precinct maps and tabulation deadlines like NBC’s breathless election guru Steve Kornacki. Watch him on election night and you will be dazzled and exhausted by his machine-gun-like sharing of statistics and crosstabs.
But you don’t need a human copy of the “Almanac of American Politics” to navigate election night.
Here is what you need to know. America’s 50 states have 3,242 counties. But in our latest episode of the “Lost in the Middle“ podcast, we explain why you only need to focus on seven states on election night. Hard to believe but that’s where we are today. Just seven in a shrinking number of swing states.
So where to start? Amy Walter of the prestigious Cook Political Report keeps her eyes on one really large state.
“I play this game a lot, and I really call it ‘If you could ask God one question.’ Now I would hope that if I had one question to ask God it wouldn't be about who won. But, anyway, if he said, ‘You could ask me one thing about the 2024 election,’ I really want to know Pennsylvania,” she told us.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Pennsylvania ranks sixth in electoral votes and it’s tough for Democrats to win if they lose i,t as Hillary Clinton found in 2016. And chances are you are, “Thinking should I watch Philadelphia or Pittsburgh?” Kornacki would be disappointed in you. The battleground county on Walter’s list is Erie, in the far northwestern corner close to Ohio. Its residents cheer for the Cleveland Browns, not the Steelers or Eagles.
Retiree Mary Buchert has a tough time explaining her neck of the woods, which has an amazing track record of picking winners.
“Well, Erie County itself is strongly Republican, very pro Trump. The city is strongly Democratic,” she said. “It’s just kind of baffling, and actually in much of Pennsylvania, they view us as belonging to Canada. They're just sort of baffled by us. And we are kind of baffled by the election coming up. I have no clue which way it will go. I have no clue what way I'm going to go.”
In “Lost in the Middle,” we profile her neighborhood and the six other counties to watch on election night. Gwinnett County, Ga.: Dane County, Wis. Jackson County, Mich.; Maricopa County, Ariz.; and Washoe County, Nev.
Of course, that’s only five. You don’t have to be Steve Kornacki to remember the 2000 trainwreck that was, and perhaps will be again, Miami-Dade County, Fla.
Keep ReadingShow less
The propaganda of 'meritocracy'
Sep 17, 2024
Degefe is a research associate in Duke University's Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity. Ince is an assistant sociology professor at the University of Washington.
Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) recently launched the Merit Caucus to prevent diversity, equity, and inclusion from dominating education. Owens, chairman of the Education and Workplace subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, argued that the left is waging a "war on meritocracy" and is threatening America’s excellence, all in the name of equity.
Such sentiment is clearly becoming more prevalent, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s decision to effectively end race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities and by Texas, Florida, Alabama and Utah banning the use of state dollars for DEI programs in public universities, effectively closing these offices.
Unfortunately, the essential principle of finding the balance between merit and offering a fair chance to those in our society who have often been denied equal opportunity has become a political minefield totally devoid of critical thinking and analysis.
Clearly, the idea of “merit” has changed in recent decades as our institutions have become more diverse. Diversity of student populations is becoming the rule rather than the exception.Traditionally, higher education and its respective fields of study were reserved for members of the elite and now that more women, people of color and first-generation students are engaged in formerly homogeneous professions, schools and workplaces, many feel threatened. One manifestation of these negative reactions is the downgrading of once prestigious fields as less rigorous when women and other members of historically excluded groups start joining them.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
While advances have been made, more can be done. A recent study on the genetic propensity for education and social class found that, while 62 percent of affluent teenagers with a low aptitude for education attended university, only 47 percent of poorer teenagers with a high aptitude attended university. Ivy League universities are significantly more diverse than 30 years ago yet 58 percent to 72 percent of Ivy League students come from families that are in the top 20 percent of earners, with only 2 percent 6 percent from “poor” families.
To be clear, we are not arguing against the concept of meritocracy. Our successes in life should be directly tied to our ability and effort. Those with the most prestigious positions should be the hardest-working and most capable. But a world in which merit matters can also be fair and just. That is the challenge we face.
It is incumbent upon us to not allow ourselves to be triggered by discussions of diversity, inclusion, equity and opportunity. All too often any discussions related to merit or lack thereof are filled with soundbites, harsh rhetoric and a general lack of critical thinking.
However, it is important to recognize that systems of inequality disadvantage the majority of Americans. With some deep reflection and with an openness to the disadvantages and prejudices many in our nation face, we can as a people co-create a sense of social cohesion through the development of dialogue that leads to understanding. A dialogue allows us to search for the best way to offer opportunities to all underrepresented groups in our county.
We need to get away from terms like “meritocracy.” It is a piece of propaganda designed to get people to support systems of privilege that they do not benefit from. This type of thinking does little to build upon the motto of our nation, “E pluribus unum.” Out of many we are one.
Rather than think of DEI in terms of eliminating merit, DEI instead should aim to even the playing field for everyone. Initiatives for inclusion have helped steadily raise the number of women in corporate leadership positions: Companies with DEI programs having10 percent more women leaders than those without. Since the Obama administration, the number of Black and Hispanic college students has increased by4 percentage points. And, more recently, there has been a push to include social class in companies’ DEI campaigns, aiming to better help everyone in the working class.
In short, diversity aims to invite everyone to the table, allowing everyone who was previously excluded a slice of the pie. It is in our best interest as a nation to see diversity as an operating system, not a quota.
Keep ReadingShow less
When lawyers attack the rule of law
Sep 17, 2024
Lawyers Defending American Democracy invites you to attend a free webinar, “When Lawyers Attack the Rule of Law,” on Wednesday, Sept. 18 at 2 p.m. Pacific (5 p.m. Eastern).
This special event will feature a timely conversation between UCLA School of Law professor Scott Cummings and Boston Globe senior opinion writer and columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr about the ways in which lawyers enable — and are complicit in — the creation of autocracies.
Cummings was named a 2023 Guggenheim fellow to study the role of lawyers in backsliding democracies. Stohr is an on-air political analyst for MSNBC, frequent panelist on NBC's “Meet the Press” and co-host of the legal news podcast “#SistersInLaw.”
In June 2024 Cummings warned about the danger we face:
“In recent years, scholars have focused significant attention on the fading fortunes of democracy around the world. This decline has occurred at the hands of new legal autocrats who dismantle democracy not through violent coups but rather through ostensibly legal actions—like changing the rules of judicial selection and elections—that undermine institutional checks on executive power. Yet while this literature helpfully spotlights law as an essential tool of democratic backsliding, it has largely ignored the actors who wield this tool: lawyers. This is a significant omission since, as the Stop the Steal campaign to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election revealed, lawyers serve as crucial gatekeepers to legal institutions targeted by autocrats (like courts and the attorney general’s office) and are necessary to design and execute legal plans to circumvent constitutional requirements (like election certification and the peaceful transition of power). Precisely because lawyers are guardians of the legal legitimacy upon which autocratic legalism depends, the profession is a critical arena of democratic struggle that merits special attention.
“Rule-of-law attacks like Stop the Steal do not occur in a vacuum. They are manifestations of a deeper democratic malaise. That malaise is a product of structural forces that occur over long time horizons and affect the profession, reshaping lawyer norms and practices in ways that can create conditions of possibility for rule of law attacks to occur.
“One such norm, central to the rule of the law, is professional independence. Because lawyers control access to legal institutions, they serve the critical role of screening legitimate legal claims. Public lawyers—prosecutors and government legal advisors—have special obligations in this regard, guaranteeing that when legal decisions have a policy impact, they are made in the public interest and not for partisan advantage.”
Lawyers have essential roles to play in the struggle to protect and defend our democracy. Join this important webinar to learn more.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More