Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Time's up. The art of making a better exit

Time's up. The art of making a better exit

Former U.S. Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks to reporters inside the U.S. Capitol Building about her husband Paul Pelosi's recovery on January 27, 2023 in Washington, DC.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Richard Davies is a solutions journalist and podcast consultant. He co-hosts two bi-weekly podcasts: "Let's Find Common Ground" for commongroundcommittee.org, "How Do We Fix It?"

A lot of people I know are reading and chatting about a book with a very blunt title that was written by a wise 89-year-old woman from Sweden.


“The Gentle Swedish Art of Death Cleaning: How to Free Yourself and Your Family From a Lifetime of Clutter” is the title in the U.S. In Sweden they call it “Döstädning.” In our society, where we are rather squeamish about discussing death, we might prefer to call this sensible practice “streamlining.”

“Döstädning” means removing unnecessary stuff that you’ve collected over many years and making your home nice and orderly when you think the time is coming closer for you to leave the planet. Döstädning is a hot topic among the over 60’s crowd—those we politely refer to as “senior citizens.”

Death cleaning, or getting our affairs in order, makes perfect sense, and saves precious time for our loved ones when we are gone.

The book’s author, Margareta Magnusson, writes with a dash of wry humor in a direct manner. Some of her prose is so lovely and wistful that there is a hint of poetry. Magnusson’s next book, soon to be published here, is called "The Swedish Art of Aging Well: Life Wisdom From Someone Who Will (probably) Die Before You."

I plan to read that one as well.

Around here in Southeast Connecticut those who ignore Margareta Magnusson’s advice sometimes fill me with sadness. Many old folks live alone and haven’t moved in years. They occupy houses with attics and garages full of stuff. They never threw away their old rarely used possessions.

When we die we often leave it to those we love the most to perform the monumental, dreary task of finding a home or a dumpster for everything from our old armchairs and tables right down to thimbles, paper-clips and pins. We should start early, or in my case, now.

Myra, a dear old friend of mine in her mid-80’s, died a couple of months ago. I called one of her sons the other day and asked: “How are you doing?” He told me a sad story. He loved his mom very much but sorting through all her stuff has been very hard. Especially the old photographs. “What do we throw away, what do we keep,” he wondered. It has been emotional and exhausting.

Perhaps “Döstädning” should apply not only to our personal affairs, but public life too.

Far too many elected politicians are too slow to step away from their time in the sun and leave the stage. The problem is more pronounced in the U.S. than in many other nations, where perhaps more elected officials know that they have a life after politics. In November Charles Grassley of Iowa was re-elected to another six year term in the Senate. He is 89.

If President Biden runs again next year — as he’s expected to do — and wins a second term in the White House, he’ll be 86 by the time he leaves office.

It’s quite possible that in 2024 Biden will face former President Trump (76) in a rematch. What a sorry prospect.

The elderly have a great deal of experience and wisdom but should they remain in highly demanding stressful jobs beyond their time? Baby boomers like me still have a lot to give (and write), but there should be time limits or term limits on those who hang around too long.

Last month, 82-year-old Nancy Pelosi had the good grace to step down as House Speaker. In a recent interview with Maureen Dowd in The New York Times, Pelosi said that “It’s just the time, and that’s it. Upward and onward. I’m thrilled with the transition. I think it was beautiful.”

Her daughter Alexandra, a documentary filmmaker, told Dowd that “my mother is at peak happiness. I’ve never seen her like this.”

What a splendid exit. May the rest of us know when to face up to later years of our life with similar good grace.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less