Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Your take: What are you willing to sacrifice to protect democracy around the world?

Your take: What are you willing to sacrifice to protect democracy around the world?

Ukraine continues to dominate news coverage with multiple streams of information in play, influencing our beliefs and actions. This week, we asked:

Given the nexus of events surrounding oil, higher gas prices, advancing green energy, taking a stand against Russia to help protect democracy across the globe, etc., what is your willingness to absorb higher gas prices or sacrifice by changing your personal habits?


Most respondents indicated a willingness to change their behavior and saw such changes as supportive of democratic rule, generally. Many noted personal circumstances that allowed them to more easily do so. But not everyone. As expected, we have many opinions about this topic. A sample of responses is below, edited for length and clarity.

I have NO problem with higher gas prices. Bring it on — especially if it encourages Americans to think about and decrease their energy consumption and shift to public transit (and advocate for improvements in public transit if they don't have or like it). I'm sympathetic to low-income Americans who have no alternatives to driving as a result of poor public transit systems where they live and work. Subsidize them if necessary, but don't cut gas taxes. ~Deborah Brodheim

I am more than willing to pay more, wait in lines and change related personal habits in order to support efforts to get Vladimir Putin to reconsider his Ukraine invasion. I realize (and am grateful) to be in a position to do this without dramatically altering my life and daily routine while others may not be. In other words, “easy for me to say.” But I do feel strongly that, short of starting a war between the U.S. and Russia, all must be done to drive Putin to stop this aggression. ~Bruce Bond

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Personally, I am prepared to make considerable sacrifice in terms of price increases for food, fuel and beyond. The reason is simple: Liberty is a delicate gift and protecting it and the democratic forms of government that aspire to providing it is essential even to the point of funding safety, medical care and education, which are essential to the restoration and actualization of a human life. The reason I take this position is because we are currently facing the misunderstanding in our own social system that freedom is about individual rights without consideration for assuming social responsibilities. In other words the preservation of Ukrainian independence and responsible shelter for Ukrainian refugees is critical because in another time and another place we could be “them.” In fact, in another time many of our ancestors were “them.” ~Craig Lindell

I am a zero-waste cyclist who composts. But I’m willing to sacrifice nothing for Ukraine. This is a false choice — our sacrifice will do nothing to help the Ukrainian people. We could and should end this now by stating NATO will not accept Ukraine. That was true before Russia invaded, and there isn’t going to be much Ukraine left anyway if this continues further. ~Lisa C

Whatever it takes. It is the right thing to do. The Purpose of Life:

  • To make the world a better place to live.
  • To make your life and the lives of those around you more enjoyable.

~Ray A. Curtis

Yes I am willing to accept higher gas prices if they will actually impact the Ukrainian war in a manner that weakens Russian abilities to conduct the war. This is easy for me as I am retired, drive a car that gets 26/42 MPG and live within a couple of miles of most of the places I need to go to. However, I know people who drive pickup trucks and commute 100 miles or more a day. For these folks this will be an economic hardship. ~Bruce Jewell

Not willing to sacrifice anything. We have no business being involved in this war. If our leaders would act for the benefit of our country we would be completely energy independent, produce all we need here and not have to lose our people in foreign wars. ~Arthur Schleinkofer

Pay those higher prices at the pump. I don't mind feeling the sting. It's minor compared to living in fear in a basement with your children and little to no food, no water, and no light, while your husbands, sons and brothers (and in some cases wives, daughters and sisters) fight to maintain a fragile democracy, to retain freedom of thought and expression. It's the least we can do. ~David Soubly

I will sacrifice whatever it takes to end war and strengthen democracy worldwide. Our grandchildren are of draft age. Given all the privileges my generation has taken for granted for decades, it is long past our turn to step up and work for democracy, peace and the environment. We owe it to our ancestors and our heirs. ~Ellen Chaffee

I have previously done virtually all I can to reduce my use of gasoline and minimize the effects of fluctuations in the price of gasoline. As for the current situation with Russia, I support the effort to maintain Ukraine's national integrity any way I can. ~Niel Leon

I am all in! Quite ready, quite willing, and quite able to absorb all it takes to help Ukraine! ~”Gator” Jack Schuler

Read More

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

A view of destruction as Palestinians, who returned to the city following the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, struggle to survive among ruins of destroyed buildings during cold weather in Jabalia, Gaza on January 23, 2025.

Getty Images / Anadolu

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

Ceasefire agreements are like modern constitutions. They are fragile, loaded with idealistic promises, and too easily ignored. Both are also crucial to the realization of long-term regional peace. Indeed, ceasefires prevent the violence that is frequently the fuel for instability, while constitutions provide the structure and the guardrails that are equally vital to regional harmony.

More than ever, we need both right now in the Middle East.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

The Committee on House Administration meets on the 15th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United v. FEC.

Medill News Service / Samanta Habashy

Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

WASHINGTON – On the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and one day after President Trump’s inauguration, House Democrats made one thing certain: money determines politics, not the other way around.

“One of the terrible things about Citizens United is people feel that they're powerless, that they have no hope,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.).

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less