This episode of Braver Angels puts a Biden supporter in the hot seat. Wilk Wilkinson, a conservative Republican, interviews Jordan Carmon, a staunch Biden supporter, on everything from Hunter Biden to January 6th — showing us what's possible when we bring good faith to our richest, most passionate disagreements.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

Voters cast their ballots at the Buckhead Library for the primary runoff election on June 16, 2026 in Atlanta, Georgia.
Jessica McGowan/Getty Images
Bridgers in the House Face Disproportionate Headwinds in the Midterms
Sep 02, 2026
The primary elections are still going??
More than five months into primary season we still have 7 states to go: Alaska, Florida, Wyoming, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware picking up the rear on September 9th.
With 43 states worth of primary election data now in, let’s take our first look at how bridgers and dividers are faring as we march toward November’s general election.
Context: Our Bridge Grades thesis is that when non-partisan Americans systematically support collaborative bridgers and push out polarizing dividers, we can change the composition of lawmakers on Capitol Hill and re-normalize cross-partisanship for a healthier Legislative Branch and our common good.1 Bridge Grades compiles non-partisan 3rd party data to find them.
First, let’s look at those leaving Congress.
Net losses amongst those departing the Senate
In the Senate, 12 seats are set to turn over (so far) with nine members retiring, two having been primaried, and one recently deceased. Of these 12, we will lose seven bridgers, including four A-graders Sen. John Cornyn [TX|85.6] and Sen. Bill Cassidy [LA|93.9] who were primaried and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [NH|98.1] and Sen. Gary Peters [MI|95.7] who are retiring. With three more B-graders also retiring, there will be a net loss in collaboration against just five dividers departing (4 Cs and 1 F). Not great.
Net gains amongst those departing the House
The picture improves in the House with a net gain in collaboration coming from a higher share of dividers leaving the House than their bridging counterparts.
As of August 132, 66 lawmakers (so far) are guaranteed not to return to the House for the coming 120th Congress due to retirement, lost primaries, or seeking other offices.
Of these, 44 currently earn Cs and Fs with dividers representing 66% of the departers so far. Remember that there is by design a 50/50 split between bridgers and dividers in each chamber, so when two-thirds of the leavers are dividers, the overall collaboration tide rises — and sets us up for a higher median benchmark for the 120th Congress ahead. Good riddance.
Two-thirds of House leavers earn Cs and Fs for divisive governance.
It would be remiss not to recognize the five A-graded leavers including Rep. Don Bacon [NE|86.3] and Rep. Vern Buchanan [FL-16|96.9] who are retiring, Rep. Buddy Carter [GA-01|86.0] and Rep. Randy Feenstra [IA-04|93.8] who lost primary bids for Senate and Governor respectively, and Rep. Chris Pappas [NH|99.2] who is running Sen. Shaheen’s open Senate seat. Sorry to see you go.
What about the incumbents in the House who are up for re-election?
Don’t bury the lede, because the composition of the leavers is only part of the story.
The shift in composition of our lawmakers in Congress also depends on the outcome of the general elections in November — particularly in those districts which have not been drawn to be non-competitive by gerrymander-maxxing.
Cook Political’s race ratings are the industry gold standard and my go-to when it comes to election competitiveness ratings.3
In the House, of the 357 incumbents who remain in their races (some still with a primary ahead), 305 are in districts that are deemed uncompetitive by Cook Political. That leaves just 52 incumbents whose future in the 120th Congress still remains in doubt.
And, it is within this group where things look alarming.
Bridge Grades of the 52 incumbents sorted by race rating from Cook Political.
The table above shows that 43 of the 52 incumbents in tight races are collaborators (grades A and B) who are at risk of losing their seats. In a moment when voters are frustrated and err toward a “throw the bums out” vibe, there is a significant risk that we lose many lawmakers who are currently governing more collaboratively than their peers.
A second reminder here, that ours is a non-profit project for voter education, and we deliberately avoid individual endorsements.
In the spirit of open data, we share a table of those incumbents below.
What about the incumbents in the Senate who are up for re-election?
To complete the picture, let’s revisit the Senate. With a dozen Senators leaving as described above, 21 are actively running in November to retain their seats for another 6-year term. This group looks somewhat balanced with 12 bridgers and 9 dividers across both parties. However, few of those races are remotely competitive. Again, we rely on Cook Political’s ratings to zoom into the five remainig competitive elections in the Senate. Four of these five (80%) see bridgers defending their seats, against just one C-grader in play.
Conclusion: House bridgers are clearly under siege
In the House, the data is clear that Congressional leaders with more collaboration skills than their peers once again face harder work to retain their positions than their divisive colleagues. The Senate looks more balanced.
Sure, we should absolutely expect bridgers to be over-represented in more purple (competitive and less gerrymandered) districts. These legislators have been elected to represent an electorate who more often appreciates cross-party solutions. And they earn good grades when they do so.
But, who’s got their back?
Here’s the rub. It’s lonely out there for these bridgers. First, they take heat from their own side for not being loyal enough to the party. If they survive that, they get hammered from the other party, for playing for the wrong team. They sit out on a limb, highly exposed, and without cover.
They need us to have their back.
Because, with the health of the Legislative Branch at stake — and the need for a more cross-partisan Congress than ever — these headwinds for bridgers in November are unnerving for our common interests.
Bridgers in the House Face Disproportionate Headwinds in the Midterms was originally published by Bridge Grades and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city on March 06, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.
(Photo by Contributor/Getty Images)
Why Americans Should Care About the Suffering Trump Is Inflicting on Iranian Civilians
Sep 01, 2026
Warfare is never decent or civilized. But since 1949, one hundred ninety-six nations, including the United States, Iran, and Israel, have subscribed to a set of principles designed to make it as decent and civilized as it can be.
That is when the Geneva Convention laid out a series of principles for the conduct of war. Central to that endeavor was the Convention’s effort to protect civilian non-combatants.
The Convention states that during wartime, “constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects.”
As the war in Iran goes on, the cost to civilians living there rises, and their suffering escalates. Americans owe it to them to be concerned about that suffering, not just because of our commitment to the Geneva Convention, but because the founding principles of this country are universal.
The Declaration of Independence is an invitation, borrowing from the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, “to put… right before country, and universal reason before the symbols of national belonging.”
Putting right and reason first and exercising “Constant care” and “all feasible precautions” hardly seem to describe what is now unfolding in Iran and other Middle Eastern nations. On July 31, the New York Times reported that the United States had dropped a two-thousand-pound bomb on the home of an Iranian family, killing the father, mother, and one of their children.
That same day, a Washington Post story described the broad array of targets now being hit by American bombs, including “at least six bridges and tunnels surrounding the port city of Bandar Abbas…Elsewhere in the south, strikes damaged communications lines, a rail station and a desalination plant… and a rail line in a province bordering Turkmenistan.”
The Trump Administration claims that all of these are so-called dual-use facilities serving both the military and civilians. But that seems to be little more than a pretense.
On July 22, President Trump made clear how little he cares about the dual-use issue or the Geneva Convention. “Any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by missile, rocket, drone, or any other device or weapon,” he wrote on Truth Social, “the United States will bomb and destroy one bridge or power plant, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran.”
Six days later, he threatened to take out Iranian bridges and power plants if the Iranians do not resume negotiations and crowed that he had destroyed most of the country. “I could take out most of their bridges in one hour and their power plants in one day. They know I am going to do that.”
Then, “We are going after destalinization plants.”
The president made even more blatant threats against Iran’s civilian population in April when he wrote, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”
At the time, Yale Law Professor Harold Hongju Koh said, “’International humanitarian law protects from attack objects indispensable to the survival of civilians, so if implemented, the attacks Trump threatens could constitute war crimes.’”
He was joined by one hundred experts in international law who published an open letter expressing their serious concerns “about strikes that have hit schools, health facilities, and homes.” Their letter noted that “The Iranian Red Crescent reports that ‘67,414 civilian sites have been struck, of which 498 are schools and 236 health facilities.’ A report by leading civil society organizations found that at least 1,443 Iranian civilians, including 217 children, were killed by U.S. and Israeli forces between February 28 and March 23. “
All of this was before the latest round of attacks.
And recall last February when Trump told the New York Times, “I don’t need international law.” In response to the question of whether he saw “any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to?,” he responded, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
His own morality is not stopping him from destroying civilian infrastructure and inflicting misery on the Iranian people. As the Post reports, “U.S. attacks triggered power outages, water and fuel shortages, and trade slowdowns. Without regular water and electricity and intact delivery networks, factory and farm output slackens, goods are slower and more costly to ship, and industries dwindle, mired in expensive uncertainty.”
“The expanded economic pain,” the Post observed, “could push millions more Iranians into poverty.”
That should be deeply troubling to all Americans. As Nussbaum explains, “If we really do believe that all human beings are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights, we are morally required to think about what that conception requires us to do with and for the rest of the world.”
That is why, when it comes to wars, constitutional democracies should fight differently, and why rheir citizens should care about the suffering of citizens living in distant places.
In 2022, the Defense Department acted on that premise and issued a “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan.” Signed by Secretary Lloyd Austin, it started this way: “The protection of civilians is a strategic priority as well as a moral imperative. Our efforts to mitigate and respond to civilian harm directly reflect our values and also directly contribute to achieving mission success.”
The document said that the American military would “integrat(e) civilian protection into our mission objectives from the start.” Secretary Austin committed to establishing a Civilian Protection Center of Excellence,” with the mission of expediting and institutionalizing the latest knowledge about protecting civilians throughout the armed forces.
He called that effort, “the right thing to do.
“The idea,” ProPublica explains, “was to embed prevention specialists within targeting teams and foster a culture that prioritizes civilian security in accordance with U.S. law and international rules of war,… expressing both a moral obligation to safeguard civilian life and a necessity to hit their intended targets.”
Give credit to Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense in the first Trump Administration, who initiated the effort that eventuated in the 2022 civilian harm reduction plan.
But that was then. Now, neither Pete Hegseth, Trump’s current Defense Secretary, nor the president has any use for such niceties.
That’s why they still have not released a report on the February attack that killed dozens of children and teachers when a missile struck a school, and has gutted the civilian harm reduction effort, reducing by 90 percent the Civilian Harm Reduction mission.
Innocent Iranians are paying the cost. Americans should not look away or be so consumed by high gas prices and our own deteriorating standards of living that we do not notice the suffering being inflicted in our name, that we do not care about the much greater suffering people just like us are enduring in Iran.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less

People vote in New York's primary elections at an armory and YMCA in Brooklyn on June 23, 2026, in New York City.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Surging Socialists a Warning for Democrats
Sep 01, 2026
Something is happening in the Democratic Party that is making party leaders and media pundits take notice. It became impossible to ignore with Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 election as mayor of New York City. Now comes Angie Nixon’s stunning victory in Florida’s Democratic Senate primary, where she defeated an establishment opponent who outspent her by more than ten to one.
Candidates challenging capitalism are finding a receptive audience, especially among younger Democrats. They are no longer easily dismissed as isolated insurgents in liberal enclaves, though their victories do not mean socialists are taking over the party.
Republicans and much of the mainstream media portray this as evidence that the party is dominated by the extremist left. That misses the larger story. Democratic socialism’s rise tells us less about Americans’ enthusiasm for socialism than about their disgust with MAGA populism, capitalism run amok, and the Democratic establishment’s failure to offer a convincing alternative. Socialism is gaining strength not because it is a proven cure, but because it gives a name to what many voters believe is wrong.
An American Tradition
Despite America’s free-market reputation, socialism has influenced its politics before. The Progressive Era arose partly in response to America’s first Gilded Age, when capitalists like John D. Rockefeller produced extraordinary wealth alongside dangerous workplaces, urban poverty, and enormous political power. Reformers proposed different remedies, but they agreed that unrestrained capitalism was trampling democracy.
Indiana’s Eugene Debs gave the socialist critique its most prominent national voice. He ran for president five times and received nearly 6 percent of the vote in 1912. Socialists also won state and local offices. Though they never came close to winning national elections, they put workplace protections, industrial unionism, and economic inequality on the political agenda.
Wisconsin’s Robert La Follette, though not a socialist, shared many of the movement’s concerns about monopoly and corporate power. His 1924 presidential campaign united progressives, labor unions, farmers, and socialists. Endorsed by the Socialist Party on Debs’s recommendation, he received almost 17 percent of the national vote.
Their Midwestern roots matter. The old left also drew strength from farmers, railroad workers, industrial laborers, and small-town reformers across the heartland.
While these movements failed to win national power, they forced the major parties to confront problems they preferred to ignore. Progressive taxation, antitrust enforcement, labor protections, and Social Security did not abolish capitalism. They strengthened it by placing democratic limits around it.
The DSA’s Long Game
The Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, was established in 1982, but its lineage reaches back to Debs’s Socialist Party. Founder Michael Harrington rejected Soviet-style communism and building marginal third party. He argued instead that socialists should work with labor unions, civil rights organizations, feminists, and liberal Democrats.
The DSA’s relationship with the Democratic Party is therefore nothing new. Democratic socialists run as Democrats because America’s two-party system leaves little room for a successful left-wing party. So, they maintain a separate organization and use Democratic primaries to challenge the party establishment.
This is the latest version of an old debate: Should the left build its own party or work within the two-party system? The DSA, from the start, has chosen the latter. Its recent victories raise a deeper question: Why is this decades-old strategy only now gaining traction, particularly among younger Democrats?
Why Socialism, and Why Now?
Younger Americans were promised that education and hard work would produce security. But as Noam Scheiber explores in Mutiny: The Rise and Revolt of the College-Educated Working Class, many instead encountered debt, precarious and unfulfilling work, and homeownership beyond reach. The gap between promise and reality has fueled political disaffection.
In a 2025 Gallup poll, 66 percent of Democrats viewed socialism positively, while only 42 percent viewed capitalism positively. Yet 81 percent of Americans still viewed free enterprise favorably. The apparent contradiction is revealing. Many voters are not rejecting markets, private property, or entrepreneurship. They are rejecting the concentrated wealth and corporate power they see embodied by Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
MAGA populism and democratic socialism offer rival responses to this loss of confidence. Both argue the system is rigged, elites have betrayed the public, and ordinary people are being cheated. But they identify very different villains. Trump directs anger toward immigrants, bureaucrats, universities, and cultural elites. Democratic socialists direct it toward billionaires, corporations, landlords, and the political establishment.
The movements are not morally equivalent, but they draw energy from the same institutional failure. Neither party’s establishment has convinced Americans that the current system can provide economic security or govern in the public interest. Socialism is gaining support less because voters have embraced collective ownership than because it offers a language for condemning an economy that no longer seems to work for them.
A Warning, Not a Cure
The insurgents on the left have correctly identified the economic system’s failures: extreme inequality, concentrated corporate power, weakened workers, and the rising cost of living. But identifying a disease is easier than curing it. Socialists sometimes underestimate what markets do well, what their programs would cost, and how difficult sweeping promises can be to carry out. Winning a Democratic primary is also not the same as winning the country.
Establishment Democrats make the opposite mistake when they treat socialist victories as radical one-offs rather than political warnings. Lecturing voters about socialism while defending an economic order that has failed to provide affordable housing, healthcare, and security will not restore confidence in the party.
We do not have to embrace socialism wholesale nor dismiss it entirely. Democrats, like the Progressive Era reformers and the New Deal, must curb capitalism’s abuses while preserving its capacity to create wealth and opportunity. Earlier reformers regulated monopolies, protected workers, and provided security markets could not reliably deliver. They made capitalism work better for more people.
If today’s Democrats cannot do the same, democratic socialism will continue to attract voters, not because it has proved that it can govern, but because the existing order has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less

There are approximately 1.3 million eligible voters in Arizona, about 25% of the state's potential electorate, according to Equis Research.
Adobe Stock
Arizona's Hispanic Youth Encourage Voter Participation
Sep 01, 2026
Young Hispanic residents of Arizona are encouraging their peers to become more civically engaged by making their voices heard in upcoming elections and members of the advocacy group Poder Latinx said it is especially important now, amid an increasingly caustic and polarized political landscape.
About 41% of Hispanic Arizonans are registered to vote but make up less than 21% of all registered voters in the state.
Helen Romero, a Tucson member of the group, is encouraging people Romero knows to register, vote and become more civically engaged.
"Latina involvement is important because our communities deserve to be represented by the people who understand their experiences. When Latinos get involved, we bring diverse perspectives. Participation also inspires the next generation," Romero explained.
Poder Latinx has created an online guide for voters to help them register, find their polling place and study ballot information prior to an election.
Romero added she is helping the Hispanic community understand their voices are heard in elections, pushing back on a persistent historical narrative in the community their votes do not matter.
"Not only Latinas, I feel like the whole Latin community doesn't know that their voice is being heard. They try to shy away from politics because, I mean, we were taught that since we were little not to be involved in those things," Romero observed.
Nearly 15% of the Hispanic population reported they felt their vote would not matter in the 2016 general election, or they were uninterested in the outcome.
Arizona's Hispanic Youth Encourage Voter Participation was originally published by Public News Service and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















