Vice President Harris meets with civil rights leaders and consumer protection experts to discuss the societal impact of AI.
Vice President Harris convenes a meeting to discuss the societal impact of AI
The White House
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
us a flag on pole under cloudy sky
Photo by iStrfry , Marcus on Unsplash
This Country ’Tis of Thee Calls America to Unite Again
Oct 22, 2026
In July 2024, before the presidential election, I was deeply moved by a song written by New York/Nashville recording artist and songwriter Candace Asher. It’s called “This Country ’Tis of Thee.” Asher is internationally and critically acclaimed for several top‑five hits and airplay in 12 countries in the early 2000s.
I teamed up with Candace, and together we wrote new, contemporary lyrics for “This Country ’Tis of Thee,” and together we produced the video that went live on YouTube.
At the time, Asher said: “Working on this tune with David meant the world to me. We both wanted to capture the importance of this profound American moment — one that we all must responsibly seize. It’s arguably the presidential election that will define this nation’s future.”
And now, two years later, as we approach another important election less than 20 days away, the same uncivil, dysfunctional behaviors continue to divide our nation.
As I said then, when “This Country ’Tis of Thee” first appeared, the rancor and division between Americans had reached a breaking point. We must stop obsessing over our differences and instead rediscover the common bonds of our shared humanity — bonds that can, do, and must hold us together.
Today, two years later, our political rhetoric and national divisiveness are worse than ever. The success of democracy rests on our power to harness the tensions of the day, approaching our differences as opportunities to learn, grow, and find out how to work together. Only then can Americans fulfill our Constitution’s promise — the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For all.
Listen to “This Country ’Tis of Thee” as it calls on every American to express their patriotism through positive, meaningful action. Don’t sit on the sidelines. Don’t wait to get started. Define what being a better American means to you and help make it real.
America has always been an exceptional country, for many reasons. From the outset, its citizens saw themselves as participants in an experiment bearing implications for all humankind. The journey that is the United States of America began 248 years ago with the motto e pluribus unum, meaning out of many, we are one. This unity has always depended on respecting and valuing our nation's diverse backgrounds and perspectives, each of which enriches our shared experience. For this motto to remain America’s foundational premise, "We the People" must once again become actively involved.
The lyrics to “This Country ’Tis of Thee” are Asher’s and my way of an appeal to action—today, as they were two years ago, and as they will be for generations to come. Since the song's release, we have heard from Americans across the country who shared how the message inspired them, from teachers using it in civics classrooms to neighbors organizing community discussions. We have received notes from listeners who said the song moved them to vote for the first time or to reach out to those with different viewpoints. These stories remind us that music can unite and motivate us, and we hope even more people will share in this spirit by taking positive steps forward.
We are a nation trying to heal herself
We’re a nation who is we.
We’re a nation who has to make tough choices now
To remain the land of the free.
We all hear the call from sea to shining sea
But leave it up to someone else to lead the way
When in fact it is up to each and every one of us.
That’s the real American way.
So what will you do — what will you say?
What stand will you take — get started today.
In each one of our dreams there is something we are trying to reach.
We must save this democracy because this country ’tis of thee.
Please listen to “This Country ’Tis of Thee” and take one step, however small, to help heal and unite America.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson on August 15, 2025 in Anchorage, Alaska.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
What Would Putin’s Puppet Do Differently?
Oct 22, 2026
This winter, Russia plans to freeze Ukraine into submission. According to an intercepted Russian plan, Moscow intends to use hundreds of ballistic missiles, long-range drones, and glide bombs to strike Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa with such intensity that they are cut off from power, heat, and water, slashing electricity and heat by up to 90 percent and crippling sewage systems. Russia hopes that with an energy system so thoroughly destroyed, millions of Ukrainian citizens would become so cold, sick, and desperate that their country might just surrender. Deliberately attacking the heat and water of civilians is a war crime, but Moscow thinks it can get away with it. Ukraine is running short on the Patriot interceptors it needs to stop ballistic missiles, and Putin is betting Trump will continue to betray Ukraine. It’s looking like a safe bet.
Trump shows no evidence to the contrary. On October 9, he got off a call with the Russian president and then immediately lifted U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel. The next day, after Russian strikes killed at least 17 people in Zaporizhzhia, Trump announced it was “time for Ukraine to get a new president.” Days later, the American-controlled satellite network Ukraine’s military depends on was throttled without warning, knocking out service to the drones Ukraine uses to chase down Russian attack drones. Trump denied giving the order, but The Telegraph reported that Musk pitched the idea and Trump agreed.
Trump chooses Putin even over himself. On September 18, Trump signed the Lindsey Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act. On October 16, he waived its sanctions, two days before they took effect. The Senate passed the bill 86 to 11, the House passed it 262 to 159, and the president signed it into law, only to render his own signature worthless–all for Putin. Then he blamed Zelenskyy, claiming that the Ukrainian president “doesn’t want to end this war, and probably never did.” Trump himself promised to end the war in 24 hours. It’s been a very long 24 hours. Meanwhile, Putin’s investment envoy says Washington is already brainstorming ways to lift even more sanctions. If Congress objects while Trump is listening to Putin whisper sweet nothings, does it make a sound?
Ukraine was promised better. In 1994, it gave up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for assurances that its borders would be respected. Russia signed that agreement. So did the United States. One signer broke its word by invading. The other is now helping the invader. According to The Wall Street Journal, on that same October 9 call, Putin proposed a summit with Trump and Xi Jinping to settle the war on Moscow’s terms. Ukraine isn’t invited. A former Russian intelligence officer said Putin envisions a second Yalta, where great powers carve the world into spheres of influence. This proposed meeting of the triumvirate could be the soft launch, while Europe and NATO brace themselves for impact. Germany is already preparing its hospitals for war on NATO soil.
None of this should surprise us. Ten years ago this week, in the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said Putin would rather Trump be elected because he wanted “a puppet as president of the United States.” She called Trump out for refusing to admit that Russia was behind cyberattacks on the U.S., saying he was “willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do.” Trump shot back: “No puppet, no puppet. You’re the puppet.” Clever rebuttal, but I’m not sure I’m convinced.
Turns out, Clinton’s warning was prescient. Spout the Putin line? Trump says Ukraine needs a new president. Sign up for his wish list? Trump continues to ease or flat-out waive sanctions on Russia. Break up NATO? Trump may attend a Yalta-style summit to redraw Europe’s map with no Europeans in the room. What does Trump get in return for doing his puppet master’s bidding? A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report found that Putin approved and directed Russia’s 2016 interference to help Trump. In 2024, the Justice Department seized 32 Kremlin propaganda domains and charged two Russian state-controlled media employees with funneling nearly $10 million to an American media company. This fall, Bloomberg found Russia was using an army of bots to disseminate fake election videos against Democrats in 20 of 35 Senate races. Trump still calls it all a “hoax.”
If Putin had put a puppet in the White House, what would that puppet be doing differently? Whether Putin is pulling the strings or not, Trump is betraying our closest allies with reckless disregard for the long-term health of our nation and the world. Every country that has ever trusted an American promise is watching what happens to Ukraine this winter. So are our adversaries.
Some Republicans are waking up. Senator Lisa Murkowski said Trump should use the authorities Congress gave him instead of letting Russia rake in revenue. Senate Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, signed a bipartisan letter calling the diesel deal “a gift to our adversary and a betrayal of our allies.” Representative Brian Fitzpatrick is forcing a House vote on a bill to block it, and in National Review, Andrew McCarthy wrote that Trump is giving Putin “aid and comfort,” the Constitution’s own language for treason, and demanded hearings. Just this week, a bipartisan congressional delegation held a video call with Zelenskyy where they affirmed, despite Trump’s actions, their commitment to Ukraine in ending “the slaughter in Russia’s war of aggression.” It’s a good start, but every Republican who ever praised Reagan for standing up to Moscow should put up or shut up. It’s time they reined in the leader of their party.
The rest of us have work to do, too. Call your representatives. Demand that they enforce the sanctions they passed, send Ukraine air defenses before the cold sets in, and hold hearings on this administration’s dealings with the Kremlin. This winter, Ukrainians will share generators, check on their neighbors, and refuse to break. The least we can do is pick up the phone and vote by November 3.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.
Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa
Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?
Oct 22, 2026
Issue Introduction
Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.
During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.
The History of Government-Owned and -Assisted Grocery Stores
Several organizations and local governments have established grocery stores as a means of serving their communities. These efforts have had varying degrees of success, providing historical evidence of both benefits and difficulties of running such establishments.
Kansas State University’s Rural Grocery Initiative (RGI) is a research and community development program focused on sustaining grocery stores in rural communities. While RGI is not a government program, it uses state resources to support independent and locally-owned stores by providing management training, grant assistance, and other operational resources. RGI has provided assistance to several successful markets, such as St. Paul Market in rural southeastern Kansas. Baldwin Market in Baldwin, Florida was a city-run grocery store opened after the town’s only privately owned grocery store closed. Though it enjoyed initial success, it closed in 2024 because it lost more customers to other towns’ dollar stores and big-box grocers than it could recoup from sales revenue.
Arguments in Opposition: Industry and Political Resistance
Government-run grocery store initiatives face significant opposition from political figures and members of the grocery industry. Both groups’ arguments are based on economic evidence arguing that alternate methods of price easing will be less harmful and more effective in the long run. Owners of New York City’s bodegas and small markets share concerns that the initiative will let government stores undercut their businesses by offering prices that can’t be matched without compromising profitability. This is because their stores operate on tight margins and charge prices which are already lower than those of major grocery retailers. New York City members of the National Supermarket Association also fear that undercutting local markets will threaten the jobs of New Yorkers employed at those establishments. Their doubts are shared by the city council members voting on the funding allocation required to establish the stores.
Mamdani’s use of city-run grocery stores as a key tenet of his political agenda has drawn skepticism from strategists and policymakers who question whether Mamdani and his team understand the initiative’s true financial cost. They observe that the capital required to furnish the stores with proper supply chains and staffing might deter investment in private businesses and grow costlier over time as government administration of these functions makes day-to-day management more inefficient. These challenges lead them to argue that government power would be more effectively invested in subsidies or tax breaks that encourage stores to lower prices. This type of intervention has proven successful through its use in the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) program, which provides subsidies to grocers opening stores in food deserts. Supplementing existing initiatives would allow them to start faster and reach a greater number of city residents.
Arguments in Favor: Lowering Prices and Addressing Food Insecurity
Support for government-run grocery stores hinges on their ability to offer groceries at a lower price than traditional retailers. This is because the government does not have an interest in generating profit, and prices can be set to solely cover operating costs. Such practices are most typically observed in commissaries, government-run stores located on military bases. While only available to military affiliates, commissary stores ease financial strain on military members and families by offering necessities at a lower price. The Defense Commissary Agency (DCA)’s cost-plus model sets prices with a 5% surcharge to cover operating costs and lets shoppers pay 25-30% less at commissaries than they would at retail stores. Proponents of municipal grocery stores use this example to show that such savings can be achieved in civilian settings.
Government-run stores also draw support for their role in addressing food deserts, geographic regions lacking access to grocers and healthy food. More than two dozen New York City neighborhoods are considered food deserts and rely on bodegas as a major food source, providing residents with highly-processed food items as opposed to fresh produce and ingredients. This disparity is reinforced along lines of income. The ratio of bodegas to supermarkets in historically low-income neighborhoods–such as Brooklyn’s Sunset Park and Bedford-Stuyvesant–is 57:1, while high-income neighborhoods like Manhattan’s Upper West Side have a ratio as low as 3:1. City-operated grocery stores could diversify grocery options in low-income neighborhoods with limited supermarket access, offering fresh foods not often available at local stores.
Looking Forward
Mamdani must secure funding from the city council to move forward on developing the grocery stores. The council faces an imminent July 1 deadline to ratify its budget for the 2027 fiscal year, which currently includes the $70 million needed to cover all five store locations. If funding is acquired, development will begin at the two predetermined locations, La Marqueta in Manhattan and The Peninsula in the Bronx, as sites are selected for the stores in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. The Peninsula location is expected to be the first to open in 2027.
Conclusion
Mayor Mamdani’s proposal to provide New York City with five government-owned grocery stores is designed to provide healthier, more nutritious options to communities without traditional grocery retailers. While similar initiatives have been carried out in the past to varying degrees of success, providing consumers with lower prices and mitigating the negative effects of food deserts, worries persist about the government’s ability to manage the stores efficiently and the effects said stores might have on small businesses that cannot set competitive prices. The proposal has also drawn questions about whether supplementing existing nutrition programs would be more effective at reaching a greater number of New Yorkers. Debates over this program will likely continue until the July council meeting that decides whether it will receive funding.
Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach? was originally published by The Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Oct 21, 2026
The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.
However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.
Almost a century ago our country rejected both socialism, the complete government control of the economy, and unregulated, survival-of-the-fittest capitalism. Instead, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt navigated a middle path between the two, the New Deal. We stayed with capitalism, with the free market, but Roosevelt’s administration implemented a broad range of financial and corporate regulations to ensure our economy worked for more Americans. Using the power of government to moderate capitalism was a fulfillment of the most basic promise of our Constitution, the promise of equality of opportunity.
Moderated capitalism had broad support throughout society, and even support from the Republican Party. While they certainly saw the mix differently, Republicans and Democrats agreed that the government should both nurture the free market and make sure it served the whole of our country.
And moderated capitalism worked. It allowed us to tap into the immense talent and ambition of every part of our population. Capitalism is more efficient if there is one set of rules; a level playing field allows everyone to compete equally, creating the greatest value for society. Making sure more people shared in that value through reforms like the 40-hour workweek, overtime pay, and unionization put money in people’s pockets and helped create the engine of our massive consumer economy.
Our country has backed away from its commitment to moderated capitalism. In part, this happened because of the ebb and flow of history. Our free-market model had won, producing far greater wealth and personal freedom than socialism. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, we stopped paying as much attention.
However, most of the blame rests with the two major parties. Both began to step back from, and actively undermine, the compromise of moderated capitalism. The true believers in unfettered capitalism still had a home in the right wing of the Republican Party. They claimed the victory over socialism as their own and argued our economy had matured and needed less regulation. At every opportunity they cast government as inherently incompetent and untrustworthy. Part of the Democratic Party also bought into the idea of “triumphant capitalism,” happily going along with deregulating our economy
Page 1 of 2
while collecting ever larger donations from corporate interests. The Republican Party slowly chipped away at the protections of moderated capitalism, and the Democrats either helped with the dismantling, or stood by and did nothing.
As a result, in ways large and small, our country has stepped back from moderated capitalism. We’ve pulled away from using the powers of government to ensure everyone can participate in our economy. We’ve allowed our bridges and roads to slip into disrepair. We’ve retreated from ensuring every student has access to a quality education. We’ve allowed unions to be undermined. We’ve weakened the parts of government that protect us from products that harm us or our environment. We have rolled back financial regulations and consciously chosen not to extend regulation as Wall Street created new financial products, or as new technologies like the Internet were transforming our society. In many different ways, we’ve backed away from our commitment to providing a level playing field.
The return of unregulated—even predatory—capitalism has also led to a renewed interest in socialism, in the government takeover of our economy. But the answer still isn’t to abandon the free market—it’s to go back to moderating it. We need to again make sure that every American has the ability and the opportunity to participate in our economic system. We need to get back to one set of financial, investing, and insurance rules. We need to get back to an updated New Deal, to again make our economy work for all Americans.
Blake Ashby is author of Socialism and the Democratic Party: The Case for a Return to Moderated Capitalism, President of the Ferguson Democratic Township, and a political consultant working with Democratic candidates.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More