When We All Vote is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that is on a mission to increase participation in every election and close the race and age voting gap by changing the culture around voting, harnessing grassroots energy, and through strategic partnerships to reach every American. Launched in 2018 by co-chairs Michelle Obama, Tom Hanks, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Janelle Monae, Chris Paul, Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, When We All Vote is changing the culture around voting using a data-driven and multifaceted approach to increase participation in elections. In the months directly before the 2018 midterm elections, When We All Vote organized 2,500 local voter registration events across the country, engaged 200 million Americans online about the significance of voting, and texted nearly four million voters the resources to register and get out to vote. And we're just getting started. We're helping bring even more people into the voting process because when we all vote, we all do better.
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
The Constitution didn't create American prosperity — geography, immigration, and historical luck did. Here's why that matters for reform debates.
miflippo/Getty Images
The Constitution Did Not Make America Rich
Aug 27, 2026
Americans are taught a reassuring story about their country’s success. The United States became prosperous, powerful, and free because the framers wrote an exceptional Constitution. The miracle of Philadelphia produced the miracle of America.
The story appears in classrooms, campaign speeches, judicial opinions, and serious scholarly works. Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson have argued that institutions securing property and constraining expropriation help separate rich nations from poor ones. But the popular American version takes that insight and turns it into something much stronger – and misguided: that our prosperity flowed from our particular constitutional design, and that altering it would put the wealth at risk.
And it is that mistake that matters, because the belief that the Constitution produced American economic prosperity makes any serious proposal for constitutional reform appear reckless.
But the United States did not become rich primarily, or even largely, because of the Constitution’s particular design. It became rich because it occupied an extraordinarily favorable continent, possessed vast natural resources, attracted millions of immigrants, developed an enormous internal market, protected commerce through ordinary law, and benefited repeatedly from historical fortune.
Prosperity did not flow from constitutional perfection or even its particular design – just the opposite. Prosperity has given the Constitution a legitimacy it does not deserve.
Begin with geography. The United States is protected by two oceans and bordered by comparatively weak and friendly neighbors. Historian C. Vann Woodward described this advantage as “free security.” Unlike the major powers of Europe, the United States did not spend centuries defending vulnerable borders against large neighboring armies. As a result, it devoted far more of its resources to farms, railroads, factories, universities, and cities.
The continental interior was equally consequential. The Mississippi River system provided some of the world’s richest agricultural land and a vast natural transportation network. The Great Lakes industrial region had access to enormous deposits of iron ore and coal. Texas and the plains held vast reserves of oil and gas. These were geographic and geological gifts, not constitutional achievements.
Then there was the scale of the country. As transportation improved, the United States developed an enormous integrated domestic market. Manufacturers could produce goods for consumers across a continent. Farmers could sell crops to growing cities. Workers and capital could move across state lines. Businesses could expand without confronting a new language, currency, customs regime, or national government every few hundred miles.
And finally there was the enormous benefit of immigration. Roughly 20 million immigrants arrived between 1870 and 1920, supplying labor, entrepreneurial energy, technical knowledge, and population growth precisely when the country was industrializing. Later generations continued to start companies, staff universities, develop technologies, and expand the workforce.
A truthful account must also acknowledge what else built the wealth. Enormous American fortunes rested on enslaved labor, the seizure of Indigenous land, and racial subordination enforced by law. During much of the period in which the United States became an economic giant, it was not functioning as an inclusive constitutional democracy. Women could not vote. Black Americans were subjected to slavery and then Jim Crow. Asian immigration was restricted by statute.
Here the Constitution was not a bystander. As ratified, it counted three-fifths of the enslaved population when allocating congressional representation, increasing the political power of slave states. It required the return of people who escaped slavery and prevented Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808. If we want to credit the original Constitution with a direct contribution to early American wealth, its abhorrent and immoral protection of slavery is the clearest one available.
Historical fortune played a central role as well. By 1890, the United States had become the world’s leading industrial power. Two world wars then devastated its principal competitors while leaving the American homeland and industrial base intact. After 1945, the United States emerged with unmatched manufacturing capacity and enormous influence over the institutions of the new international economic order. That outcome was not written in Philadelphia.
Of course, favorable geography and abundant resources have not made every well-endowed country prosperous. Take Argentina as an example. It possessed fertile farmland, extensive natural resources, and a period of mass European immigration. At the beginning of the twentieth century, its per-capita income ranked among the highest in the world. It then spent much of the century falling behind countries it once rivaled.
And all this occurred even while its constitution of 1853 borrowed heavily from the American model, adopting federalism, a three-branch national government, a bicameral legislature, and presidential government. Juan Bautista Alberdi, whose work strongly influenced the Argentine charter, believed that constitutional liberty, immigration, foreign investment, and protection for property and commerce could help unlock Argentina’s prosperity.
Argentina initially prospered and then diverged. Historians and economists still debate why, and the range of explanations — weak political institutions, eroded checks and balances, unstable and inward-looking economic policy, insufficient investment in human and physical capital, adverse international shocks — cautions against reducing its experience to a single cause. But the comparison helps establish a key point: geography and resources alone are not enough. Neither is borrowing the machinery of the American Constitution.
Lasting prosperity requires stable institutions, predictable rules, investment in people, openness to innovation and exchange, and protection against arbitrary government action. None of those are a result of the Electoral College, equal representation of states in the Senate, life tenure for federal judges, an amendment process requiring approval from three-quarters of the states, or most of its other provisions.
Consider what laws actually govern and facilitate American commerce: state rules of property, contracts, corporate governance, secured transactions, and commercial dealing and federal law governing securities, banking, and a national market. None of which are enshrined in the Constitution nor depend on preserving the Constitution’s particular electoral, legislative, judicial, or amendment structures.
Comparison confirms the point. Other developed democracies – including Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries – all protect property, enforce contracts, and constrain arbitrary government power under constitutions very different from our own. They have different electoral systems, legislative structures, judicial arrangements, and amendment procedures. Their prosperity has not depended on adopting the American constitutional model.
Nor has American prosperity depended on preserving the original constitutional settlement. The country’s economic rise survived a Civil War, the abolition of slavery, the Reconstruction Amendments, the creation of a national administrative state, the New Deal’s transformation of federal authority, the growth of modern civil rights, and repeated reinterpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. That history should change what we believe constitutional reform would risk. The economic case for constitutional stasis is not really a case for the Constitution’s existing design. It is a case for the rule of law, secure property, enforceable contracts, predictable government, and an integrated continental market. Any serious reform proposal must preserve those things. None requires preserving every compromise reached in 1787 or every feature of the constitutional structure that has grown around it.
I have argued elsewhere for a reordering of the United States into an American Union that would allow two sovereign democratic republics to adopt modern constitutions while retaining a common defense, a single currency, free movement of people, and an integrated internal market. Whatever one thinks of that proposal — or of other approaches to constitutional reform — it should be judged on its political, legal, and practical merits, not rejected on the mistaken assumption that altering the framers’ design would destroy the foundations of American prosperity.
Fear of economic disruption should not place the Constitution beyond reconsideration. America’s prosperity rests on foundations far broader and more durable than one largely outdated governing document.
The Constitution certainly did not make America rich — and fear of losing a prosperity it did not create should not prevent us from asking whether it is time for an update.
Jordan Karp is a lawyer and writer based in New York with a keen interest in American political culture, institutional reform, and civic life.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
An examination of how gun rights, taxes, business regulation & public health all reflect the same core principle: rights come with responsibilities to society.
Joseph Sohm/Getty Images
With Rights Come Responsibilities - That's the American Way
Aug 26, 2026
People on the Right/MAGA are always talking about their rights and how the government is taking away their rights. Whether it’s the issue of gun ownership, running a business, or restrictions on movement during the pandemic, people on the Right don’t seem to understand what it means to be a citizen. Yes, we have rights. But with rights come responsibilities. Not even the right of free speech, let alone the right to gun ownership, is absolute.
Man is by nature concerned mainly with his and his family’s interests. That is his biological imperative. Socially, however, man has evolved into being a member—a citizen—of a larger society. And so, from the most primitive communities to contemporary societies, that driving instinct has been reigned in for the greater good of the community.
In indigenous and many Asian societies, a collective culture developed that enforced working for the good of the group largely through social pressure. In the West, where the concept of individualism took root, societies have instead depended upon laws to control the relationship between a man’s rights and those of his fellow citizens.
Whether it’s the criminal law, traffic laws, zoning codes, or business regulation—laws developed that balance the individual’s rights against the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the greater public good; they tell the individual what the limits are of his freedom to act, of his ability to do what he wants to do. Without such laws, we would have anarchy.
Not only do we have the responsibility not to harm others, as our society became more enlightened, the concept developed that man had positive responsibilities to the larger society. We had shared responsibilities for the community’s welfare.
In the current political context, there is an uproar on the Right regarding this fundamental aspect of the relationship between government, individual rights, and the greater public good that came to define the American social contract. This post will look at several examples.
1. Public Health and Safety: The government has wide power to regulate matters in this area. During a pandemic, the government has the power to restrict movement and take other measures to control the spread of the virus, to protect individuals from each other. Yes, this restricts our normal rights, but these restrictions are necessary for the public good.
2. One aspect of public safety concerns gun ownership. Even if one agrees—which I don’t—with the 2008 Supreme Court decision that the 2nd Amendment confers a constitutional right to individual gun ownership, that right, like the right to free speech found in the 1st Amendment, is not absolute. It too can be limited when necessary for the greater good. So whether it’s broader background checks or prohibiting private ownership of assault-type weapons, these are restrictions that should be held to meet the constitutional standard. The NRA’s argument that ultimately pro-gun control advocates want to take away "your guns" is just fear-mongering; there is no basis in that claim.
3. Business regulation. The primary interest of any business is self-interest … that is its nature as much as it’s man’s nature. As we saw during the Industrial Revolution, if business is not regulated, it will show no concern for either its workers or the public good.
I have therefore argued in an article,“Towards a Reformed Capitalism," that because corporations are a creature of the law and have received many benefits under that law, corporate law should require that part of the decision-making process be the impact of corporate action on workers and the public good.
4. Taxes. No one likes paying them. Some taxes, like sales taxes, are regressive, meaning the lower a person’s income, the larger the share of their income that goes to paying taxes. (Regarding sales taxes, that’s because lower-income people spend a larger share of their income on the purchase of necessities and other goods, which results in the tax taking a larger share of their income.)
As the United States developed into a more progressive society, it realized that regressive taxes posed an unfair burden on the poor. A socially fair tax would work in the opposite way … the higher one’s income, the greater the share of that income that would be paid in taxes. That was deemed fair because the very rich could pay higher taxes without it posing any hardship, without it putting a crimp in their lifestyle. And that's how the income tax was designed … as a progressive tax.
In 1932, the income tax for the top bracket was 63% of income over $1,000,000. In 1950, it was 91% of income over $400,000. As recently as 1980, the rate was 70% of income over $212,000. But since that time, since the Reagan presidency, the rate has been only 37% of income over $510,000.
So since the Reagan presidency, the rich have paid a smaller portion of their income as taxes than at any time since the income tax was instituted, and as a result, less money has been flowing into the public treasury and available for the public good—which includes many areas of government activity in addition to programs that aid the elderly and the poor. The rich have indeed become richer.
One reason why Republicans are always seeking to lower taxes regardless of the impact on the public good is because programs that help the poor, such as Aid to Dependent Children and Food Stamps, are not supported by Republicans. They may be necessary to the well-being of millions of our citizens—2025 Census data show that 10.6% of Americans, or 35.9 million people, live below the poverty line—but Republicans feel such programs support undeserving people.
In all these areas, President Trump and his MAGA allies are in keeping with historical Republican opposition by arguing that the government’s role should be reduced or eliminated. People should be free to do what they think best. Business should not be regulated. The wealthy should not pay more taxes. The poor should have to fend for themselves … if you don’t succeed, it’s your fault.
Programs like Social Security are distinguished by them from other government programs because the benefit has been earned. Regarding corporate subsidies, they don’t call them subsidies because it would smack of socialism.
Republican positions are against the balance that our nation struck in the 20th century between private rights, the public good, and the role of government. Their positions violate an enlightened concept of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.
Republicans wish to take us back to an era where individualism ran rampant and success was limited to the few. America’s strength in the 20th century, though, evolved by broadening the base of prosperity among its citizens and creating a more vibrant, intelligent workforce through the intervention of government programs and regulation.
That is where we need to continue heading in the 21st century to ensure America’s continued strength. Trump’s policies will not make America great again because they are against the empowerment of people and thus actually weaken America. MAGA Republicans need to be recognized for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people. They are not responsible citizens of this great republic.
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
Keep ReadingShow less
us a flag on flag pole under cloudy sky during daytime
Photo by Meadow Marie on Unsplash
Reflections on Youth250 after the 250th
Aug 26, 2026
Ten years ago, I embarked on a year-long exchange to study abroad in France. When I left the United States, I also left my desire to be associated with America. Political shame, American exceptionalism, and my hope to be identified as a global citizen fueled me.
Ten years later, I still wrestle with similar feelings. As I wrote these reflections from what has become an annual trip to Japan for the past three summers, I realize the distance from “home” gives me perspective.
During my travels, I meet new people, learn about new cultures, and compare experiences with other people from all over the world. In France, I shared a kitchen with young adults from France, China, Canada, Indonesia, Ecuador, Côte d’Ivoire, and more. Over shared meals, passing the aux to listen to and dance to various music, and deep conversations about similarities and differences from home, I began to recognize privileges and freedoms I had that others sought.
As I wandered the streets of Japan, I had an almost unfathomable sense of safety—wishing that my children could live like the little girl who walks around the city by herself. I have a fondness for the well-kept beauty of the land. I witness the traditional alongside the futuristic. I see a different quality of life.
Every time I return from abroad to the U.S., I experience a challenging reverse culture shock—a feeling of disorientation and a lack of connection with my community. The disillusionment, distrust, and disinterest seem to be heightened. The political and social rhetoric I return to breeds cynicism, and it takes intentional reorientation to feel like I belong.
At the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I hoped my return would be less jarring. For nearly two years, this momentous occasion has been at the forefront of my mind. Not because I was excited about it, but rather out of concern. If you had asked me in 2025 what I imagined would be happening at the 250th, I envisioned further division…the kind that sparks violence. Although this has been the case in multiple situations across the country, I prayed it wouldn’t be at a devastating scale. What I know has softened my perspective is my involvement with Made By Us’ National Youth250 Bureau.
Youth250 provided community and space to grapple with the complexities of celebrations and commemorations. It exposed me to diverse ideas and ways that people and institutions are meeting this moment. It gave me training and insights into the challenges and opportunities museums and cultural institutions are facing. It allowed me to explore my family history, my career path and the ways my work experiences have shaped my ability to be civically engaged. It amplified youth voices by supporting our creativity through the Writing Club and more, leading me to publish pieces I would have never imagined. It gave us the audacity to imagine amid chaos. It empowered me to step into my own leadership, to remember that my participation is one of the most democratic ways to serve this country and our world.
Youth250 gave me hope and responsibility.
And we are only at the beginning. The decades ahead will host various 250th commemorations: the Constitution in 2037, the Bill of Rights in 2041. Youth250 was more than fizzling fireworks, branded ads, and merch; it was a reminder of how much work we still have to do and an invitation to keep shaping a future that is still up for design. May the seeds planted by Youth250 continue to be watered. I’ll be paying attention to the stories of impact that continue to flourish from creating inclusive institutions that bring youth to the table as active co-creators and not passive inheritors. I hope you will join me—not only in bearing witness, but in helping bring more of us along to realize a nation that works for ALL.
KaRa Lyn Thrasher (she/her) is a member of the inaugural Youth250 Bureau and staff member at Center for the Future of Arizona.
Keep ReadingShow less
Bill Hill
Bill Hill Facebook
An Independent Just Broke Through in Alaska — As Republicans Try to Kill the System That Made It Possible
Aug 26, 2026
Independent Bill Hill is heading to the November ballot after finishing second in Alaska's Aug. 18 top-four open primary, setting up a race against Republican incumbent Rep. Nick Begich III for the state's at-large US House seat. With 396 out of 403 precincts reporting, Begich led with roughly 46.12% of the vote to Hill's 30.89%.
In Alaska's system, all candidates run in a single primary. The four candidates with the highest vote totals are then placed on the November general election ballot. Voters use ranked choice voting to rank those four candidates based on their preferences.
After the initial vote totals are counted, if no one has received over 50% of the vote, the candidate with the lowest total votes is eliminated. Everyone who voted for that eliminated candidate then has their second preference added to the tabulation, and this process repeats until a candidate has received over 50% of the vote.
In this system, then, Democrat Matt Schultz (8.04%) and Democrat Eric Hafner (3.80%) will also appear on the ballot this November. While these numbers aren't final, it's exceedingly unlikely that these top four will change.
Matt Schultz suspended his campaign and endorsed Hill before the primary, though he did so too late for his name to remain on the ballot. Under the RCV system used in the general election, however, voters are free to vote for Schultz as their first choice and Hill as their second, allowing them to express their preferences without needing to waste their vote on a candidate who is no longer campaigning.
Hill, a Dena'ina Athabascan raised in the Bristol Bay village of Kokhanok, spent decades as an educator—teacher, principal, and most recently superintendent of the Bristol Bay School District, a post he retired from in 2023 after being named the state's superintendent of the year. He's also a lifelong Bristol Bay commercial fisherman.
A political newcomer, Hill entered the race in January criticizing "billionaires, corporations, and politicians" for rigging the system, and has said he has never registered with either major party.
On fundraising, the incumbent Republican is significantly ahead, as is the case with most races between a major party candidate and an independent. FEC filings show Rep. Begich with a $5.5 million total fundraising haul, and a little over $3 million cash on hand heading into the general. Hill has raised a significant sum for someone who doesn't have major party backing—$1.34 million—but he still lags behind the incumbent, while outraising the Democrat ($865k). He heads into the general with $515k cash on hand.
An Aug. 3-5 poll from GBAO—a Democratic-aligned firm, surveying 500 likely voters with a 4.4% margin of error—showed Begich leading Hill 46-42% head-to-head. However, another poll done by Alaska Survey Research has Begich receiving 48% of the vote in the first round and hitting the 50% threshold in the second.
On issues, Hill has emphasized the cost of living, healthcare and grocery prices in rural Alaska, and what he calls corruption tied to concentrated wealth in Washington. He's declined to say which party he'd caucus with if elected.
Alaskans adopted the top-four system narrowly in 2020 and then, in 2024, rejected a repeal effort by the narrowest margin in state history: 737 votes out of nearly 321,000 cast. Opponents regrouped quickly, and a new repeal initiative, backed by Alaska Republican Party leaders and gubernatorial candidate Bernadette Wilson, will appear again on the November ballot alongside Hill's own race.
This means Alaskans could simultaneously send an independent to Congress and vote to dismantle the system that advocates argue makes independent and new party victories more feasible.
An Independent Just Broke Through in Alaska — As Republicans Try to Kill the System That Made It Possible is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More