Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Where are our followers?

Where are our followers?
Getty Images

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

How would you describe the constituency of healthy self-governance? It should be all of us, right? Those of us who are crazy in love with the process of democracy may not be the popular kids we think we should be.


For a democratic republic like ours in the United States to function and survive we need citizens to be involved; and involved means more than just voting. Yet deep into my career in the strengthening democratic values and norms movement, I’ve come to realize far too few citizens are standing up for the practices and principles of democracy; leaning into respectful deliberation for nuanced and best-possible solutions.

Or perhaps there are more of us than we realize, but we don’t recognize them? Are they the exhausted majority? The radical centrists? The moderates? Yes.

Recent polling from Gallup shows 37% of Americans are self-declared moderates. That’s more than self-declared conservatives (36%) or liberals (25%). Citizen Data has done a deeper dive, asking just who these moderates are. Of these self-declared moderates, their research shows that 45% show no preference for the Democrat or Republican parties. Are they the constituents our democracy movement needs?

I am pleasantly surprised that as more people have what I light-heartedly refer to as “an awakening,” and become involved, the number of ideas to fix our democratic republic is increasing exponentially. Getting people to take that first step is a critical part of the process. Once they become interested, it’s more likely they will be excited about what they can do. My own “awakening “ was 20 years ago. I found colleagues who welcomed me, encouraged me and helped me grow. It’s my pleasure to welcome and mentor others now.

When these new constituents show up, they are most likely a self-proclaimed leader, or occasionally an executive volunteer. We’ve had very few people approach us who want to be worker bee volunteers, wanting to be part of the movement and willing to do whatever they are asked.

The needs we have from constituents are varied and honestly that’s a great thing. Some people just want to develop relationships with people different from themselves to impact their local neighborhood, some people want to lobby their members of Congress, and some people just want to review legislation and contact elected officials. We’re dedicated to helping Americans find their path, a path that fits into their schedules and their preferences. Anyone can do something but too few sign up. Perhaps they feel they are risking their social capital to do so?

While pondering all of this, I’ve come to realize that none of my friends from 20 years ago are still close friends. I became a different person and we drifted apart. It was emotionally lonely until I found my new friends and support for my new sense of purpose. “Good luck with that” is the common refrain I hear from people who seem unwilling to use their agency as a citizen for positive change.

When citizens fail to become involved, the elites of academic, business, and think tanks begin their work to organize it for us citizens, and with good intentions in service to all. They seek a strategy to determine which ideas are worthy of funding; which organizations will become institutions for democracy. However, by not being involved we citizens are abdicating our voice and placing our power in the hands of a few well-intentioned people who are tasked to spend their dollars as wisely as they can. Often they didn’t ask to make these decisions. But here we are, nonetheless. The solopreneurs who I welcome into the movement will be left to fund their own ideas.

As more and more folks awaken to the risk our nation and world we are in, who will show up to follow the many self-designated leaders?

I’m reminded of Terry Pratchett’s book, “Small Gods.” In his acerbic, satirical way, Pratchett’s Discworld, a fictional world, assigns power to the panoply of gods according to their follower count. Given that this was written in 1992, before social media existed, I find it ironic in a very dark way.

Today, we have many leaders focused on the nation or world at large, missing the pain in their own lives and in their own neighborhoods. Remember the saying “all politics is local?” And if we really want to get local; what if the real work is in our own family? In our own backyard and on our own block? In the dorm? Or at work? I have long held that the solution we each seek will follow a fractal pattern. We are near discovering similar and self-replicating patterns of behavior and activity at small and large scales.

I’m excited by the thought that the fractal pattern we (or just me, the fractal nerd) seek isn’t a new strategic plan, but an act of kindness. AOKMaine is testing this theory out; attempting to shift the underlying tone in the many small and rural towns throughout Maine. What can you do? Hand a coffee to the homeless person you pass on your way to work? Help out a neighbor who needs their lawn mowed?

Crazy idea—some may say a bit idealistic. What if caring about each other is the solution? What if the reality is there will be no single leader in our democratic future. What if we just worked toward a community of equals, where we take turns leading one day and following the next.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less