Newsy's Vote Smarter 2020 series aims to answer your questions about the most unusual election in modern history. From early voting to counting ballots to staying safe at the polls, get all the information you need to successfully cast your ballot this year.
This video is being made available on The Fulcrum through our partnership with Newsy — "delivering news with the why."
New York Times columnist David French was removed from the agenda of a faith-basd gathering because we was too "divisive."
Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.
On June 10-14, the Presbyterian Church in America held its annual denominational assembly in Richmond, Va. The PCA created considerable national buzz in the lead-up when it abruptly canceled a panel discussion featuring David French, the highly regarded author and New York Times columnist.
The panel carried the innocuous-sounding title, “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The reason for canceling it? French, himself a long-time PCA member, was deemed too “divisive.” This despite being a well-known, self-identified “conservative” and PCA adherent. Ironically, the loudest and most divisive voices won the day.
Is this really what we need from our faith leaders at a time of such deep divides in our communities and in the nation? I pray not.
Much ink has been spilled decrying “cancel culture” and whether figures on the political left or political right suffer more from it. But far less attention is given to why individuals, groups and organizations feel canceling others is the only option available when faced with ideas and people we disagree with — or when the presence of those people results in backlash from those we see as allies, supporters or funders.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I’ve dedicated my 35-year career to transforming America’s hardest-hit communities and reconnecting institutions like schools, newsrooms and places of worship to society. Experience teaches me that we have another option besides surrendering to those who seek to cancel others and even shut down civic life altogether at signs of differing views or discomfort or dissonance.
In fact, I believe we especially need faith leaders today to exemplify an alternative approach to engaging in public and religious life — to be a voice informed by courage and humility and, yes, doubt.
In so many of the communities where I’ve worked over the years — from Flint, Mich., to Clark County, Ky. — faith leaders hold enormous influence. The faith community is critical to the civic culture in a community and the vibrancy of our wider shared society. But we face a particular challenge in America today. Too many faith leaders and religious groups are sowing difference and division.
Our urgent task is to shift the territory from difference and division to a focus on our shared aspirations for our lives and communities. In doing so, we must be clear: We are not asking anyone to give up their religious identity, doctrines or beliefs. As a person of faith myself, I know I would bristle at the notion that I need to somehow give up my beliefs when doing community work.
Instead, consider these questions. Can we hold onto our individual religious identity and beliefs while lifting up our heads for long enough to discover and work toward a shared purpose with others? Equally important, are we willing to do this with those we may even disagree with when it comes to our political views or specific religious doctrine?
When I pose those two questions to faith leaders, the answers I get are resoundingly positive. Every day I am heartened by the work being advanced by faith leaders in the communities where we’re working deeply. Places like Alamance County, N.C. —one of the most divided places in the country — and Reading, Pa., once named the poorest community in America. Faith leaders in those and many other communities are coming together to work on the shared aspirations of their communities and engender authentic hope among people. It is because they are willing to discern where they can work together for the betterment of their communities and get moving together on action that addresses what really matters to people.
They offer a lesson to groups that aim to live out a civic purpose in society. Canceling someone like David French does nothing for our shared civic — let alone religious — lives. It short-circuits our ability to come together to build stronger communities. And, in turn, a stronger country.
There are real differences in our country. We all know this. Let’s name it but let’s not use it as an excuse for inaction or continued separation. It’s high time we focused on what we can agree on and what shared actions we can take in order to move forward together.
Amid the decline in religious affiliation, I believe faith leaders have a necessary and vital role to play in our civic lives. In fact, they have much to teach us about what it means to hold — even restore — our faith in one another, which is in part the purpose ofmy national civic campaign, “Enough. Time to Build.”
But that won’t happen if various religious groups and leaders choose to close down civic life just when we most need to open ourselves up and turn outward toward one another.
Fannie Lou Hamer testifies at the Democratic National Convention in 1964.
Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.
Sixty years have passed since Freedom Summer, that pivotal season of 1964 when hundreds of young activists descended upon an unforgiving landscape, driven by a fierce determination to shatter the chains of racial oppression. As our nation teeters on the precipice of another transformative moment, the echoes of that fateful summer reverberate across the years, reminding us that freedom remains an unfinished work.
At the heart of this struggle stood Fannie Lou Hamer, a sharecropper's daughter whose voice thundered like a prophet's in the wilderness, signaling injustice. Her story is one of unyielding defiance, of a spirit that the brutal lash of bigotry could not break. When Hamer testified before the Democratic National Convention in 1964, her words, laced with the pain of beatings and the fire of righteous indignation, laid bare the festering wound of racial terror that had long plagued our nation. Her resilience in the face of such adversity is a testament to the power of the human spirit.
"I question America," she declared, her voice trembling yet resolute. "Is this the land of the free and the home of the brave?" In that moment, Fannie Lou Hamer embodied the essence of prophetic witness. She stood as a living testament to the moral bankruptcy of a system that had devalued Black lives for centuries. Her unwavering commitment to justice, rooted in an unshakeable faith, illuminated the stark chasm between America's professed ideals and its sullied reality.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Yet even as we acknowledge Hamer's legacy, we must also recognize our progress. The Freedom Summer of 1964 did not usher in a racial utopia, but it did shine a light on the deep-seated intransigence of white supremacy. The disenfranchisement that fueled the movement then continues to plague us, but we've also seen significant strides toward equality. As we face voter suppression tactics, both overt and insidious, we can take heart in the fact that we've overcome similar challenges in the past. This progress should give us hope for the future.
As the 2024 presidential campaign progresses this summer, the specter of Freedom Summer looms large. The American populace stands at a crossroads like our forebears 60 years ago. Will we heed the clarion call of prophetic witness exemplified by Hamer, embracing a vision of accurate equity and participatory democracy? Or shall we succumb to the forces of reaction, allowing the hard-won gains of the past to wither on the vine of complacency?
Much like it was in 1964, the answer lies not with our elected leaders but with each of us. In that pivotal year, the struggle for civil rights reached a boiling point, and the collective action of ordinary people brought about transformative change. We, the descendants of those freedom fighters, must reclaim the mantle of prophetic witness. Our ancestors marched, protested and sacrificed to pursue equality and justice. Now, it's our turn to carry the torch forward.
We must organize, mobilize and demand a society where every voice is heard and every vote is counted. This requires more than just passive agreement — it demands active engagement. We must educate ourselves, raise awareness, and use our unique skills and platforms to push for progress. It's not enough to remember the past; we must actively participate in shaping the future. By learning from history and applying those lessons to our current struggles, we can create a more equitable world for all. Our active engagement is crucial in this journey.
The Freedom Summer movement was never intended to be confined to a single season; instead, it was a powerful expression of the ongoing struggle for racial equality and justice in America. Its actual anniversary is not marked by a specific date on the calendar but by the relentless pursuit of freedom and fairness that continues to this day.
As we reflect on the sacrifices and triumphs of that pivotal summer, we draw strength from the wellspring of Fannie Lou Hamer's unyielding spirit, her voice echoing through the ages, refusing to be silenced. We are reminded that freedom is not a destination, but a journey — an arduous path that demands our constant vigilance and unwavering commitment. The struggle for true equality is far from over, and it is our duty to carry the torch lit by those brave souls who came before us. This struggle is ongoing, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure that the fight for racial equality and justice in America continues.
In this summer of 2024, as the ghosts of our past converge with the possibilities of our future, I hope we all commit effort towards engagement in the unfinished business of Freedom Summer. The road ahead takes work. We will face resistance, setbacks, and moments of doubt. However, only by acknowledging these challenges and committing to overcome them can we expect to build a nation where every citizen, irrespective of skin color, can genuinely call themselves free. The struggle continues. The witness endures. Freedom's unfinished business awaits our answer.
If President Joe Biden steps aside and endorses Vice President Kamala Harris, her position could be strengthened by a ranked-choice vote among convention delegates.
Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.
As the political world hangs on whether Joe Biden continues his presidential campaign, an obvious question is how the Democratic Party might pick a new nominee. Its options are limited, given the primary season is long past and the Aug. 19 convention is only weeks away. But they are worth getting right for this year and future presidential cycles.
Suppose Biden endorses Vice President Kamala Harris and asks his delegates to follow his lead. She’s vetted, has close relationships across the party, and could inherit the Biden-Harris campaign and its cash reserves without a hitch. As Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested, however, Harris would benefit from a mini-primary among delegates before the convention – either concluding at the virtual roll call that is already planned or at the in-person convention.
Candidates would put their hats in the ring by earning a minimum number of endorsements from Democratic governors and members of Congress. There then would be a “blitz campaign” of polls, innovative events and regional debates. Polling would be wise to incorporate ranked-choice voting, which better identifies the consensus choice than limiting voters to a single pick. Harris won such a ranked-choice poll in 2020, shortly before Biden picked her as his running mate, where she led with 33 percent of first choices against six other potential picks and then increased her margin to win the final head-to-head “instant runoff” by 55 percent to 45 percent.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Any binding vote of delegates — whether virtual or in-person — needs modernizing, as traditional rules for convention voting pose risks. Delegates used to vote repeatedly until a candidate surpassed 50 percent, which in 1924required 103 rounds of voting. House Republicans’ public relations debacle in electing a speaker with this open-ended process underscores how it can be optically problematic and subject to unsavory backroom deals, which could alienate swing voters and increase grievances among losing candidates.
Ranked-choice voting again offers a smart solution. It was used effectively infour Democratic Party-run presidential primaries in 2020, is currently used by many state parties for internal elections and was used by Maine legislators to pick their secretary of state. It’s ideal for promoting unity while upholding majority rules. To win, candidates must balance earning first choices with broad support — exactly the formula needed to win at past brokered conventions.
A binding nomination might start with an initial traditional vote of the elected delegates. If no candidate earns a majority vote, Democratic rules bring into the next voting round the party’s superdelegates, including members of Congress. If the second round again does not deliver a nominee, delegates would turn to ranked-choice voting. It would be simple to offer delegates a secure ballot to rank candidates. The tallies could be released round by round, with the eliminated candidates praised for what they brought to the process before reporting the next results. The process would be transparent, uplifting and unifying.
In future presidential election cycles, parties would be wise to use ranked-choice voting in polls and the actual primaries. They could hold in-person gatherings like theAmerica in One Room experiment in 2019 to enable the greater deliberation and learning about candidates that the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary once offered. Given that brokered conventions are an accident waiting to happen, they should update their rules to benefit from ranked-choice voting.
Members of Congress also should build ranked-choice voting into their internal elections, using it after two voting rounds identify strong candidates but do not produce a majority winner. That would make sense for electing their party leaders and the speaker of the House.
Out of crisis comes opportunity. If forced to pick a new nominee, Democrats have real options for doing it well. Looking to 2028 and beyond, parties can adapt lessons from this planning to elevate the candidate best able to lead their party and the nation.
Chalmer is senior director of communications at Leading Edge, a nonprofit elevating culture and leadership in the Jewish nonprofit sector.
Harvard recently adopted a policy of “institutional neutrality,” saying it would no longer take a position on divisive issues. This follows controversies over Harvard’s handling of student protests, leading to the resignation of President Claudine Gay.
Many organizations “stay neutral” about controversies in this time of polarization, workplace divisions about diversity, the Israel-Hamas War, and a divisive presidential election. Depending on the situation, that decision may be morally right, pragmatically prudent, or strategically effective. Or it may not. But leaders and communications professionals often embrace neutrality with unrealistic expectations. Some use it to hide from problems that often find them anyway; others may underrate its value.
Here are five principles of neutrality to help make hard decisions about whether and when to take sides.
“Neutral” isn’t declining to take a stance. “Neutral” is a stance. You might intend your neutrality to signal, “This organization will not answer this question.” But it doesn’t. Rather, neutrality suggests that the organization accepts all answers. Depending on the circumstances, that position may be great or terrible. Consider a question like: Do you approve of Nazis? It’s obvious that “neutral” doesn’t always feel truly neutral.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
And neutrality is a stance even when the matter at issue is “unconnected to our work.” Leaders sometimes lean on that phrase as if it is a shared truth affirmed by all. But the world is large and ornery, and someone will dispute it. The issue might truly be “unconnected to your work,” and everyone you trust may agree. But not everyone will.
True neutrality is not impossible — just unsustainable. It occurs when an organization has never considered an issue. But as soon as an issue is raised, and a nonprofit’s leaders consider whether and how to respond, even momentarily, true neutrality is lost. From that moment, whether you speak or say nothing, that’s a stance.
When issues are likely to arise and stir passionate disagreements, it’s risky to assume you can maintain true neutrality. Before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, many workplaces assumed what they believed was a neutral stand on abortion; after Dobbs, that became harder. Stakeholders demanded responses, and practical HR questions — e.g., whether health benefits would cover interstate travel for abortions — forced groups to take up critical issues. True neutrality can collapse in a flash.
Neutrality can’t protect you from defending your position. Leaders sometimes expect neutrality to rescue them from the need to discuss or defend their views. It can’t. A neutral stance might sometimes minimize the volume or difficulty of the defenses you must mount, but internal and external stakeholders — staff, trustees, donors — will ask questions about any stance on a hot-button issue — including your neutrality. And while some voices can be ignored with little or no cost, you will likely have to engage in these conversations at least sometimes.
Neutrality can offer organizations some amazing gifts.
Own your moral choices. In our secularized age, we’re sometimes uncomfortable with explicit public moralizing. We don’t want our organizations to express religious values, moral judgments, or even subjective opinions. The problem is: Explicitly or not, they do. Taking a position — including a neutral one — is a moral and subjective act. Taking a neutral stance means you believe the benefits of neutrality (see No. 4) are worth accepting every side (see No. 1). That’s moral math that people calculate differently. There is no place to hide from subjective judgment or values.
And that’s OK! Depending on the issue, neutrality can mean cruelty or curiosity, cowardice or courage, hubris or humility. Let’s choose our sides and our neutralities wisely, and own them with conviction as morally meaningful choices.
This writing was originally published in The Commons, a project of the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Rep. Don Davis and Sen. Marco Rubio won the Congressional Management Foundation's Democracy Award for Innovation and Modernization.
Fitch is the president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.
One of the last places you’d expect to see innovation in the workplace is in the halls of Congress. One lawmaker described the institution this way: Congress is “a 19th century institution often using 20th century technology to solve 21st century problems.” That is one of the reasons the Congressional Management Foundation sought to create competition among members of Congress with a Democracy Award for Innovation and Modernization.
The office of Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.) is the one of two winners of this award in 2024, and Davis is the only first-term legislator to win an award this year. He and his staff seem to understand innovation and modernization are not the result of a single effort but a continuous practice. To this end, the team remains committed to exploring ways to enhance the office to serve constituents significantly through forward-thinking strategies.
For example, the office uses web-based tools like Trello for project management and Microsoft Bookings for scheduling constituent appointments. These tools support initiatives like the Veterans History Project for the Library of Congress to ensure the stories of veterans in North Carolina’s 1st district are gathered and preserved for future generations. The Airtable application handles National Defense Authorization Act and appropriations requests, including details such as the requester, funding amount, project description and status updates.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Internal communication is streamlined by utilizing text message groups on iPhones for office departments, operations and special events, enabling staff to stay connected. The office regularly holds tele-town hall meetings and webinars, leveraging virtual platforms for constituent engagement and weekly staff meetings. The office has increased feedback from these meetings by offering constituents a QR code to link directly to feedback forms. To ensure clarity and precision in communication, all team members use Grammarly across all forms of correspondence.
Lastly, the office established a Constituent Services Excellence Committee, which includes representatives from all departments, including the director of military, veterans affairs and Hispanic outreach, as well as the staff assistant for the Teen and Young Professional Mentoring and Leadership Advisory Council. The committee is tasked with meeting, reviewing, and making recommendations to the entire staff on elevating and maintaining exceptional service levels and promoting innovation and modernization. The committee also designated a staff member as the congressional modernization representative to help advance office and congressional modernization.
The Republican winner is the office of Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla). The Rubio office — a previous Democracy Award winner — set itself apart by adopting a completely paperless system and revolutionizing its management process. The office has implemented a constituent survey to get feedback on each case handled by staff members, providing crucial feedback to help the office improve its service operations. In 2023, the office restructured and revitalized its internship program to align with the senator’s mission of fostering public service interest and equipping future leaders with essential skills, knowledge and tools. The program boasts a comprehensive one-day orientation that includes a wide range of presentations, seminars and training sessions delivered in close collaboration with sub-departments.
Additionally, by developing a specialized consent form for constituents requesting assistance, the office has streamlined a previously labor-intensive process related to foreign travel. The Rubio office can now coordinate with local passport offices, prioritizing emergency travel. In doing so the office has been successful in handling several thousand passport-related cases during a State Department backlog. They quickly established internal procedures to handle the unprecedented volume of passport requests.
On behalf of a state frequently hit with hurricanes, the office developed a novel approach to coordinating available services at every level of government. In the aftermath of Hurricane Ian, staff immediately simultaneously set up tents and tables at separate locations in two affected counties to provide essential services to those in need. In collaboration with nonprofit organizations, staff helped 2,450 families receive 21 pallets of food and bottled water and FEMA registration assistance in just three days.
Lastly, the office crafted a senior fellows program designed to meet the specific needs of older adults. This program offers a specially tailored orientation and extensive training to accommodate a longer, six-month service term twice per year.
These two offices have demonstrated the value of innovation in government, not for the sake of innovation but to elevate the level of service to their constituents. If more elected officials adopted this kind of attitude, we can only wonder how people’s views of their government might change.
