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."
Taking back Congress is only step one. Read a proposed Democratic Manifesto outlining bold policies on inflation, equal opportunity, AI, and the American social contract.
While the American people's freeing Congress from Trump and Republican Party dominance is important to saving our democracy, it is only the first step. Now the Democratic Party must use the opportunity to re-dedicate itself as the Party of the people. Spiraling inflation, wage stagnation, and unaffordable housing have created a crisis for most Americans. I thus urge the Democratic Party members of the next Congress to proclaim the following Manifesto to the American people.
It is fitting and proper that Congress in the 250th year after our nation's birth rededicate itself to the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .”
That, in Lincoln's words, "we here highly resolve ... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
To that end, we, the Democratic Party members of the 120th Congress, commit ourselves to the following:
Our mission shall be to build a country of greater opportunity where:
This will be our litmus test. All policies we advocate must be consistent with this mission statement and any proposed policy that is antagonistic to it will be dropped.
The war in Iran is antagonistic to our mission—we will vote to stop it. Spiraling inflation is antagonistic to our mission—we will act to foster lower prices. Tax cuts which benefit mainly the rich are antagonistic to our mission and we will vote to reverse them. An unleashed AI is antagonistic to our mission—we will act to regulate it so that its positive values are harnessed and its destructive risks are either controlled or eliminated. Corruption in government officials is antagonistic to our mission—we will root it out.
The government's role in securing equality: What does "equality" mean? It means equal opportunity; that everyone should have an equal chance to pursue happiness. This means regulations relating to employment, housing, health care, and finance that insure equal treatment and equal opportunity. Part of this process includes programs that encourage diversity, equality, and inclusion. No person should be left out of the American dream, and that dream must once more become a reality. Our nation will be stronger when each person, regardless of background, is encouraged to make the most of themselves, their skills and talent, and thus contribute both to their own and the nation's well-being.
However, in pursuing equality, no person regardless of sex or color should by virtue of that attribute be given preference over others; that would be replacing one inequality with another. The saying, "May the best person win," should be the rule that is applied and that everyone should accept. If the decision is that a man or woman who is Black is the best person for the job or for admission to a school, then the White person must accept that; and vice versa.
The government's relationship with industry: Government should support industry and commerce insofar as they support this mission. But if industry interests do not further this mission, if they seek power and riches for themselves without corresponding benefit to the people, then we should not support those interests.
For example, business regulations that protect the interests of the people—whether in breathing clean air, drinking clean water, or being treated fairly in financial transactions—impact the profits of industry. But the interests of the people must come first. Industry should not be asked to carry burdens that would ruin them, but reasonable burdens necessary to protect the health and wellbeing of the public and consumer interests they will have to accept. With regard to free trade agreements, the globalization which they fostered certainly helped American multi-national corporations grow richer, but the American worker and public have suffered. The answer to this problem isn't clear, but one must be found.
The Democratic position on cultural issues: Regarding cultural issues that are of concern to many Americans, we state unequivocally that:
* We have no desire to deprive law-abiding citizens of guns for sport and self-defense. But because guns do kill people, the sale of guns must be carefully controlled, and guns that have no role in sport or self-defense should be outlawed.
* We revere life and are not pro-abortion. We will do everything we can to insure that no child is conceived that is not wanted so that abortion becomes rare, except when the mother's health is threatened. After birth, we will strive to ensure that all children receive the support they deserve to grow into strong adults.
* We believe that everyone has the right to pursue his or her life as they wish, so long as they do not thereby interfere with another person's rights. Differing approaches to lifestyle do not interfere with another person's rights. We thus support the rights of free speech and religion as well as the rights that have been granted LGBTQ persons, including the right to marry. And we support the right of trans individuals to receive the medical and other care they need to pursue their lives and to be accepted in their gender identity.
All American men, women, and children are owed the support of government policies in education, health care, civil rights, security, the economy, the environment, and taxation that provide a foundation of equal opportunity for all to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness. That is the American social contract.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are all about the people. We must never lose sight of that fact and work for their wellbeing.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building on September 30, 2026 in Washington, DC.
The dust from the November 2026 midterm elections has barely settled, yet a familiar, toxic chorus of political warfare is already drowning out the clear message from American voters.
With Democrats securing majorities in both the House and Senate, voters signaled a desire for checks, balances, and a focused effort on the pressing economic issues squeezing everyday families. Instead, President Donald Trump has chosen to meet the incoming legislative branch not with an open hand, but with a weaponized Department of Justice.
Following the election, Trump issued a series of directives ordering the DOJ to investigate Democratic lawmakers, accusing them of "criminal acts" and "extortion" for simply fulfilling their constitutional duty of congressional oversight. Without offering any supporting evidence, Trump alleged in his post that Democrats were distributing "threatening letters to many people, all innocent."
Meanwhile, congressional members have publicly released several letters requesting documentation on issues like tech company contributions intended for the new White House ballroom project.
Attorney General Todd Blanche quickly fell in line, saying, “What we've seen over the past several days and even over the past several weeks are outright threats,” on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Blanche used the national television appearance to validate counter-investigations against political opponents whose rhetoric he deemed "vile and dangerous."The hypocrisy here is as blinding as it is dangerous.
For years, Trump and his supporters have weaponized the term "lawfare," crying foul at every legal proceeding, impeachment, and investigation, labeling them as partisan witch hunts. Yet, the moment the American electorate votes to shift the balance of power, the administration turns around and uses the literal apparatus of federal law enforcement to intimidate the incoming majority. When incoming House Oversight Chairman Robert Garcia tells the White House to "lawyer up" regarding administration activities, federal contracts, and mass firings, he is not committing a crime—he is doing the job the Constitution mandates and voters just demanded.
The leading Democrat on the House Oversight Committee promised Sunday to launch multiple investigations into Trump administration officials, saying Democratic leadership would no longer “take the high road.”
“When Republicans go low, what we’re not going to do anymore is just take that, take the high road, and turn the other cheek,” Garcia declared. “The days of us not fighting back are over.”This retaliatory escalation fundamentally rejects how a democratic government is supposed to function. Oversight is not extortion. Checks and balances are not criminal acts.
More importantly, this playground retaliation completely ignores the mandate of the midterm elections. Voters did not go to the polls demanding a never-ending cycle of mutual legal destruction. They went to the polls looking for solutions to economic anxieties, inflation, healthcare, and governance that actually functions.
Governing requires collaboration, especially in a divided Washington. It requires a willingness to sit across the table from political rivals, find common ground, and pass legislation that helps the American people. By using the DOJ as a personal shield and sword, Trump is poisoning the well before the new Congress is even sworn in.
If the Trump administration spends the next two years consumed by vengeance and retaliatory investigations, ordinary Americans will pay the price. It is time to drop the threats of prosecution, respect the constitutional role of congressional oversight, and get to work on the issues that actually matter to the people who cast their ballots last Tuesday.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
The votes have been cast. The campaigns have ended. The winners have celebrated, and the losers have begun to assess what comes next.
For some Americans, the rancor or blame game will continue. But for many Americans, however, the most important question is neither who won nor who lost.
It is whether anyone can govern.
Throughout this election season, candidates crisscrossed the country, promising solutions to the nation's challenges. Voters repeatedly identified the same concerns: affordability, health care, economic opportunity, immigration and border security, public safety, and the health of our democracy itself.
Now comes the hard part.
The campaign is over. The governing must begin.
At The Fulcrum, we believe Americans deserve more than a return to continual campaigning. They deserve a serious examination of solutions that can attract support from conservatives, liberals, and independents alike.
That is why today we are launching a new series: "Now It Is Time to Govern."
Over the coming months, we will explore practical, bipartisan, and evidence-based approaches to six issues that consistently rank among voters' highest priorities.
This series will not ask how Democrats can defeat Republicans or how Republicans can defeat Democrats.
Instead, it will ask a different question:
What ideas have a realistic chance of improving people's lives while earning support across political divides?
Our goal is not false equivalency. Nor is it to pretend ideological differences don't matter. In a healthy democracy, disagreement is both unavoidable and necessary.
But governing requires something more than disagreement. It demands negotiation, compromise, problem-solving, and a willingness to learn from what works.
The challenges Americans face are too large and too pressing to remain permanent campaign talking points.
When families struggle to pay for groceries, housing, and child care, affordability becomes more than a political slogan.
When medical costs force families to choose between treatment and financial security, health care becomes more than a partisan issue.
When workers worry about economic mobility, when communities face crime and addiction, when the nation wrestles with border security and immigration reform, and when citizens lose faith in democratic institutions, those problems cannot be solved through rhetoric alone.
Solving our nation's problems requires leaders who respect all people, including groups that aren't vital to those leaders' reelection chances. It also requires leaders who stay open to new information and seek it out through research and analysis to broaden their horizons and effectively address the difficult problems facing our nation. Lastly, we need leaders willing to build bridges beyond their own constituency and encourage their supporters to do the same, with the goal of building the trust and understanding needed for competent governance.
And it requires a citizenry willing to demand more from elected officials than perpetual conflict.
In each installment, The Fulcrum will examine reforms, proposals, and successful models from across the political spectrum. We will highlight ideas advanced by Republicans, Democrats, independents, academics, civic leaders, business leaders, and community organizations. Some proposals may be controversial. Others may already be quietly succeeding in states, cities, and communities across the country.
The common denominator will be that they are serious attempts to address real problems.
We believe a vast, often overlooked constituency remains in American life: citizens who care less about partisan victory than practical progress. They may disagree about policy details. They may vote differently. But they share a belief that governing should involve more than scoring political points.
Too often, our political conversation rewards the loudest voices and the sharpest attacks. Yet history suggests many of America's greatest achievements came not from ideological purity, but from difficult cooperation among people who didn't agree on everything.
Today's challenges demand the same spirit.
Whether electoral mandates are narrow or decisive, the responsibility remains unchanged. Elections are not only about determining who holds power. They also create an opportunity, and an obligation, to use that power wisely. A decisive victory may give leaders more political capital, but it does not eliminate the need for effective governance, accountability, or public trust.
This series will hold leaders accountable for that responsibility.
We will ask what progress looks like. We will examine where cross-party cooperation is possible. We will spotlight innovative ideas that deserve broader attention. And we will challenge officials of both parties to explain not simply what they oppose, but what they propose. The election may have answered who will lead. It did not answer how we will solve our biggest challenges. That work begins now.
The voters have rendered their verdict. The question before the nation is no longer who will lead, but whether those entrusted with power can deliver results.
Now it is time to govern.
From the Gilded Age to Citizens United, discover how recent Supreme Court rulings empower mega-donors, reshape party spending, and impact American democracy.
American elections have always been dominated by moneyed interests. For instance, during America’s last Gilded Age, in the presidential election of 1896, William McKinley, the Republican candidate, outspent his Democratic challenger by $3.5 million (roughly $140 million in today's dollars) to $400,000 (approximately $16 million today). McKinley went on to win the election with the help of robber baron J.P. Morgan and monopoly Standard Oil. As the example shows, powerful special interests have often translated their vast economic power into political influence. But recent court decisions threaten to permanently entrench the financial imbalance between the Republican and Democratic parties.
In this light, the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) decision to transfer more than $50 million to beleaguered congressional campaigns across the country must be judged. The impact of this massive infusion of cash into the otherwise struggling Senate campaigns cannot be overemphasized. On the other side, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cannot match the GOP’s deep pockets filled by the likes of Elon Musk. The Republicans, even before this deluge of special interest money, enjoyed financial advantages. The money is coming at a particularly pivotal moment in the campaign as Republicans find themselves electorally underwater due to Trump’s unpopularity.
While the media has largely focused on the money angle, the larger story is the Supreme Court’s efforts to transform American democracy, or, as critics contend, undermine it.
The Court has, for many decades, considered political spending as protected speech. The prime example of this interpretation is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that struck down restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions. The decision effectively opened the floodgates of special interest money by creating an environment in which they could make unlimited campaign spending as long as they remained outside formal party structures.
Since then, the Court has continued to effectively abolish any attempt to rein in political spending. Just this past June, the Court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down federal limits on how much political parties could spend in coordination with their candidates. Justice Elena Kagan’s scathing dissent predicted that the decision would give wealthy donors greater influence over American politics by allowing them to circumvent contribution limits by funneling money through party organizations.
To be fair, proponents of weakening government constraints on political spending have a point that spending on candidates’ behalf is a form of political expression and that giving parties more freedom to aid their candidates helps to strengthen the parties and therefore representative government. But this view conveniently overlooks the fact that political parties operate in an environment where financial resources are distributed unequally.
As the current election cycle shows, the Republicans possess vastly greater resources than Democrats. The Court, far from making the political system more competitive, is instead reinforcing existing inequalities. By making candidates more dependent on wealthy donors and special interests, the Court’s decisions virtually assures that the system becomes increasingly attentive to their priorities. The result is a political system in which citizens lose influence while powerful economic interests gain influence over policy decisions.
The main problem is that the Supreme Court approaches campaign finance through the narrow lens of individual liberty, giving short shrift to the dangers concentrated economic power poses to democracy. This development makes the political equality promised by democratic institutions increasingly difficult to sustain.
The polls show that despite the historical levels of campaign spending by the Republicans, they are still in danger of losing both the House and Senate. The huge infusions of cash apparently cannot overcome Trump’s cratering in the polls. This shows that seemingly unlimited financial resources cannot always offset unpopular policies, weak candidates, or widespread public dissatisfaction.
If the Democrats manage to prevail despite being massively outspent, this outcome should not obscure money’s growing importance in today’s politics. The bottom line is money determines the effectiveness of parties’ communication with voters, ability to organize campaigns, mobilize supporters, and ability to effectively respond to attacks. In close races, these advantages can tip the scale.
Just as the Gilded Age provide insight into our current political situation, so too does the Progressive Era give valuable historical lessons. Many Americans did not simply accept the concentration of economic power as a fact of life. They organized reform movements, changed political institutions, and eventually forced Congress to regulate campaign contributions. They understood that democracy was undermined when a small handful of wealthy interests wielded disproportionate political influence.
The work of these journalists, labor unions, farmers, and reformers produced long-lasting changes. Among these was the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, banning direct corporate contributions to federal campaigns. Reformers at the state level enacted laws creating primary elections, initiatives, referendums, and recalls to weaken political bosses’ power. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, took the power to elect U.S. senators from the boss-controlled state legislatures and put it in the voters’ hands. These reforms culminated in the ratification of the women’s right to vote, expanding suffrage to half the population.
What lessons can be learned from this history? First, electing a new set of leaders is not enough. True reform requires sustained public pressure, hence the importance of grass-roots organizing. Second, changing the rules of political competition is as important as electing new office holders. Finally, reform worthy of its name, must change campaign financing laws that elevate the interests of the wealthy above everyone else. That means the current Supreme Court remains reform’s biggest obstacle. One way of addressing this road block is instituting term limits for the Court.
The biggest lesson, however, is that the political power of wealth in the Gilded Age did not end because the wealthy voluntarily gave up their influence. Change only occurred when citizens organized, demanded accountability, and transformed the American democracy. That remains the central lesson for our time.
Robert Cropf is a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University.
