Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What is Independence Day, really?

What is Independence Day, really?
Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Today, we celebrate Independence Day. Historically, this is the day we credit for our freedom. The facts lay out a march toward freedom that is slower and as-of-yet, unfinished.

The Declaration of Independence, apart from the aspirational opening paragraph, is a list of grievances against the British King and reasoning why the colonies were self-determining their future as free (white, landed) men. The Declaration had been approved by the Continental Congress on July 2; and formally adopted on the 4th of July in 1776, providing the date that would not become a federal holiday until 1941.

Historically, freedom was not granted to all men until June 19, 1865, “Juneteenth,” when the last enslaved people in Galveston, Texas were notified of their freedom via the Emancipation Proclamation that had been in effect since January 1, 1863. A new “Civic Season” has been introduced these last few years to mark the three weeks between Juneteenth and Independence Day.

Women’s freedom and independence is more complicated and murky. During colonial times, women were not allowed to own property, earn wages or vote. Laws differed from state to state and it was only 50 years ago when women could establish their own credit without a man’s permission. And of course, as a nation, we failed to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which seems so simple if women are to live fully free and independent. Simply stated, the ERA states, “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The Supreme Court last year piled onto the complications and murky definition of women’s freedom with their Dobbs decision; women’s control over their own bodies is not absolute. When a woman becomes pregnant, her freedom is curtailed. Body sovereignty is not her right, depending on where she lives.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

And yet, we gather each year with our friends and family members to remember the radical (and flawed) men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor so we may be (more) free. We must never forget that our rights are only as valid as our ability to act upon or with our freedom.

During the close of Civic Season today, pledge yourself to be the citizen our nation needs. Vote when you can. Engage consistently with your elected officials. Protest when you must. With freedom comes the responsibility to protect our independence and our freedom for our descendants. Without diligence, we will fall back under the rule of an autocrat.

Read More

Donald Trump and J.D. Vance

Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, standing next to former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, said President Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."

Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Assassination attempt will fuel political extremism

Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.

President Joe Biden’s initial response to the attack on Donald Trump, calling it “sick” and reaching out to his stricken adversary to express support, was commendable. Statements from other prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as notable Republicans like former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoed this sentiment of unity and concern.

In contrast, the response from some on the right — engaging in finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric — proved less productive. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination," seemingly in reaction to recent comments from Biden suggesting, "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." This divisive rhetoric only exacerbates the political tension that already grips the nation. Instead of fostering unity, such accusations deepen the partisan divide.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands coming together in a circle of people
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Building a future together based on a common cause

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.

As the 2024 presidential campaigns speed toward November, we face a transformative moment for our nation. The challenges of recent years have starkly revealed the deep divisions that threaten our societal fabric. Yet, amidst the discord, we are presented with a pivotal choice: Will we yield to the allure of division, or will we summon the courage to transcend our differences and shape a future founded on common cause and mutual respect?

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
Pict Rider/Getty Images

'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

Keep ReadingShow less