Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The long kiss goodnight: Nancy Pelosi and the protracted decay of public office

Opinion

The long kiss goodnight: Nancy Pelosi and the protracted decay of public office
Getty Images

Kevin Frazier is an Assistant Professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

Last Friday, Nancy Pelosi announced her intent to run for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives. Pelosi has occupied that seat since 1987. In nearly four-decades of service, she has accumulated political power and financial resources, earned tremendous influence over Democratic policymaking, and advanced the interests of many of her constituents.


She has also contributed to the decay of a vibrant and representative democracy. By staying in power for decades, Pelosi and other career politicians have contributed to a troubling and accurate depiction of D.C. as a place for “elite” politicians. Gone are the days of Mr. Smith going to Washington--this is the era of Mr. Smith going to Washington and planning to die there. From 2000 to 2012, seventeen members of the House passed away while in office.

I do not intend to diminish the profound sadness of losing any American willing to serve their communities through elected office, my goal is merely to scream what has only been whispered about: the House and Senate are not retirement homes.

Of course, anyone who is physically and mentally fit to vigorously and relentlessly advance the needs of their hometowns and our nation belongs in D.C. The representative who “often sits in the back rows of the House floor gabbing with her closest friends,” however, must step aside.

Notably, that’s how The New York Times described Pelosi’s current habits.

Of the House members who stick around until retiring on their own terms, they still stay for quite some time: the average House member occupies their seat for about a decade. Note that I didn’t mention the possibility of members exiting through electoral defeat--that’s because incumbents win reelection 95 percent of the time.

The upshot is that a healthy rate of turnover is contingent upon representatives and senators recognizing the value of new voices, perspectives, and ideologies breathing life into Congress. That norm has clearly not developed.

This would have been the perfect moment for Pelosi to step aside and let someone dedicate every ounce of their being to representing the needs of San Franciscans. Yet, finding a politician willing to relinquish power these days is like finding a NASCAR driver who enjoys turning right--nearly impossible.

In the coming months, the likely showdown between (1) a career politician in President Joe Biden and (2) a politician unable to dedicate their full mental energy to the responsibilities of the job in former President Donald Trump should give rise to a productive conversation about what exactly we’re looking for in our elected officials.

Some will try to derail this important conversation by coloring it Red or Blue and making it about partisan politics. Others will distract us from engaging on substantive issues by alleging people are ageist, ableist, or otherwise. None of that’s helpful.

This conversation should not be postponed nor sidetracked. From reforming the Supreme Court to analyzing the fitness of several Senators to continue to serve, the debate over the basic characteristics of the ideal public servant has spread into several important topics and can no longer be pushed aside.

Moreover, this “talk” needs to go deeper than technical fixes like term limits; we need to get to the roots of who we want representing us. My hunch is that we’re not OK with representatives seeing the House as a social club. I’d also wager that we’re tired of hearing about health reports more so than status updates on actual legislation.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting energetic, intelligent, and healthy representatives. So, let's talk about it.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less