Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The tyranny of the minority in real time

The tyranny of the minority in real time
Getty Images

Copenhaver is a Millennial Mentor, Amazon #1 Best Selling Author, Host of “The Changemaker Podcast”, Keynote Speaker, Executive Coach, Former Mayor of Augusta, and Founding Partner of #StartsWithUs.

I have long had concerns about the growing power of the “tyranny of the minority” with regards to wielding undue influence at all levels of government. Having spent nine years serving as Augusta, Georgia’s mayor, I saw tangible and troubling examples of this concept arise on an ongoing basis throughout my time in office. Generally, all a small group of very vocal citizens had to do to influence the outcome of almost any vote by the governing body in their favor was to simply pack our commission chambers with a loud and raucous group.


I can’t even count the number of times I witnessed this scenario play out where professional staff and legal recommendations on votes, many which would have benefited the majority of the citizens we served, were cast aside in the face of an angry mob in a chamber with a total seating capacity of 212. To put this into perspective, a maximum of 212 people in those chambers represents .106 percent of Augusta’s total population of just over 200,000. To call this the tail wagging the dog would be a vast understatement but it didn’t stop my colleagues from voting to appease the vocal minority and subsequently bask in their praise from those gathered in a silo of governmental dysfunction.

However, the local examples of this troubling phenomenon I witnessed pale in comparison to the events, and the potentially catastrophic consequences, which unfolded in Congress on October 3rd. I honestly believe the removal of Congressman Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House led by Congressman Matt Gaetz with the support of seven other Republican congressmen exemplifies the most egregious example of the tyranny of the minority our nation has ever seen.

In demonizing a bipartisan, albeit temporary, solution to keep our government open and avoid the inevitable negative impact a shutdown would have on millions of Americans, this small group’s shortsighted action has flown in the face of the vast majority of Americans who want to see representatives of both parties participating in solving the critical issues facing our nation in bipartisan fashion. Evidence of the majority of our nation’s citizens supporting bipartisan action was provided earlier this year with a Newsnation/Decision Desk HQ poll revealing 75% of Americans agree that, “members of Congress should be willing to compromise and prioritize bipartisan legislation over standing with their party.”

Although Matt Gaetz portrays himself as a voice of the people, consider these statistics. Last year Congressman Gaetz was elected with 197,349 total votes representing 67% of the votes cast in the 1st Congressional District of Florida. Impressive, right? But also consider the total population of District 1 is 785,773, so Mr. Gaetz’s vote total represents the support of 25% of his total constituency. And when broken down against America’s total population of 326.7 million, his vote total represents the support of .06% of our nation’s citizenry. Yet this one man, with virtually no seniority in our nation’s Congress, was able to orchestrate the removal of a Speaker of the House for the first time in our nation’s history. Mr. Gaetz has made the point that the Speaker of the House should be a person who members of Congress can trust.

As the world looks on with very real concerns for the survival of America’s democracy past the 2024 election cycle, the actions we’ve just witnessed in Congress are a very public and blatant display of the extreme polarization which threatens to tear our democracy apart. The fact that a small group of extremely insular elected officials could create this type of chaos should cause great concern to citizens throughout our nation. These individuals may receive praise, cheers and adulation in the silos and echo chambers where they find comfort, but I’m hopeful the American people will take notice and see this for the power play that it is and the unquestionable undermining impact these actions have on the future of our democracy.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less