Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
People walking down the steps of the U.S. capitol.

DNC's Proposed RCV Ban Sparks Debate Over 2028 Presidential Primaries

Defense Secretary Hegseth Testifies Before Senate Appropriations Committee

Can We Fire Hegseth Yet?

Missouri Drew a Gerrymander. Now Its Secretary of State Says Voters Can’t Say No.

Missouri Drew a Gerrymander. Now Its Secretary of State Says Voters Can’t Say No.

What Will It Take to Rebuild American Democracy?

What Will It Take to Rebuild American Democracy?

Peace and Friendship Handshake During Mass in St Mary's Roman Catholic Church

Calling all Peacemakers and Children of God

Podcast: Is it time to rethink how we understand political parties?

Podcast: Is it time to rethink how we understand political parties?
The Fulcrum
By The FulcrumJul 27, 2022
The Fulcrum
The Fulcrum staff.
See More Writings by author

In this week’s episode of Politics In Question, Hans Noel joins Julia and James to talk about political parties. Noel is an associate professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, where he conducts research on political coalitions, political parties, and ideology. He is the author of Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America, and a co-author of The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Noel also blogs on political parties at Mischiefs of Faction and the Monkey Cage.

How have events over the last decade shaped our understanding of political parties? Should we think about parties differently today than how we thought about them ten years ago? Why are the Democratic and Republican parties comprised of certain groups and interests? And does the conventional view of ideological polarization distort political reality when it comes to parties? These are some of the questions Hans, Julia, and James ask in this week’s episode.

https://open.spotify.com


Latest news

Person holding gavel and reading from a book.
Rule of Law

Retired Chief Justices Warn of Growing Threats to the Rule of Law

Protestors holding signs at a rally, one reads, "Trump is not above the law."
Ethics & Leadership

The Double Standard Presidency: When We Watch Leaders Act Above the Law

Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life
Community

Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model
Electoral Reforms

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The exterior of Capitol Hill

Getty Images

Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The 2026 congressional map is finally set after ten states adopted new congressional redistricting maps for the November 3 General Election. Observers note that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has not graded any state’s maps since it gave California’s Proposition 50 an “F” on October 30, 2025.

The PGP has officially paused grading its Redistricting Report Card because founder Dr. Sam Wang, who transitioned from the Gerrymandering Project to the Electoral Innovation Lab, has launched a campaign for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District, requiring him to step back from his academic roles, including his leadership at PGP.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Lady Justice

Photo provided

Impunity: Democracy and the Toll of Unchecked Harm

Impunity is not only the failure to punish. It is a public answer to the question of whether harm matters.

Every democracy must repeatedly answer the question of impunity. When public trust is violated, or when law itself is manipulated or attacked, penalties matter. But the deeper question is whether a society can recognize injury and prevent further harm when it has lost the ability to clearly name wrongdoing.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026