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

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

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less