Category Archives: Uncategorized

the 2025 Institute for Civically Engaged Research

We are concluding the second day of the 2025 edition of the American Political Science Association’s Institute for Civically Engaged Research (ICER), which is a professional-development program for political scientists (graduate students, professors, and some people who work in other institutions) who want to create knowledge in partnerships with non-academics.

This is the 6th ICER, which means that our current and former Fellows number about 120 people. It has been deeply satisfying to watch them do impressive research with partners and to advance in their careers.

Previously, we met at Tufts’ Tisch College of Civic Life. This year, thanks to the Haynes Foundation, we are at UCLA. The Los Angeles metro area, home to almost 13 million people, makes a fascinating backdrop for discussions of research about politics and social issues. Just yesterday, according to the LA Times,

Immigration agents in military green surrounded MacArthur Park as the convoy readied for a show of force akin to a Hollywood movie.

They came with horses and armored vehicles, carrying rifles and in tactical gear in the middle of what is the heart of immigrant Los Angeles. But there were few of their supposed targets to be found Monday — immigrants without documentation.

On the elegant UCLA campus, quiet in midsummer, there is no obvious sign of state repression. However, some of our speakers have offered insights about the city from their perspectives as engaged scholars. And our conversations range much more widely, for we have participants from Bangladesh, Nigeria, and elsewhere.

See also: Civically Engaged Research in Political Science; how to keep political science in touch with politics; Grounded Normative Theory

The Great Battlefield podcast

For his podcast, The Great Battlefield, Nathaniel G. Pearlman interviewed me about my whole life so far (starting with my childhood), my recent visit to Ukraine, and my take on the state of US democracy. The result–an hour’s conversation–is here:

a pluralistic 250th

As the 250th year of the republic begins, I am not in a celebratory mood. Our current political crisis is the worst since 1877, the end of Reconstruction. The government is violating core republican principles; and to some extent, this is happening because of flaws in American culture and civil society.

Still, the United States is a community, and communities can mark auspicious dates. America’s 250th anniversary events need not celebrate our national leaders or claim any kind of superiority for our political history and system. The year can be a celebration of our people, by our people, in all our diversity. We can mark the 250th in a pluralistic way, with many local communities, groups, and institutions expressing how they understand the moment–not in a centralized way determined by the White House. In that case, the 250th will be an opportunity to contest the meaning of America, and such contestation is the best of our tradition.

My friend Rev. Dr. Willis Johnson writes: “Personally, I’m drawn to the notion of bearing witness, not just to what is, but to what ought to be. Independence Day, in its best form, should be an act of collective remembrance and recommitment, not just a party. We need to remember that freedom is not static, nor is it evenly distributed. We need to recommit to the labor of making liberty real for everyone, especially those for whom the promise of independence still rings hollow.”

I am old enough to remember the Bicentennial, albeit dimly. The official American Revolution Bicentennial Administration organized some of the events. President Ford presided over a nationally televised fireworks display and reviewed the sailing ships that had gathered in New York Harbor from aboard a naval vessel.

But there were also many local and nongovernmental events, including some protests. The image with this post illustrates an environmental protest in the Boston Harbor that marked the 200th anniversary of the Tea Party. Even the Tall Ships were organized by a nonprofit.

To the extent that the celebrations appeared unified, it was mainly because of the political context. Two centrist presidential candidates, Ford and Carter, were competing to unite the country after the traumas of the previous decade. Nixon had resigned in 1974; Saigon had fallen in 1975. This meant that Watergate and the war were now definitively over, and Americans could hope that a less contentious period was starting. The national government did not create a unifying moment, but the country was in a relatively unified mood.

Such is not the case today. The official national effort, America250, has “announce[d] a monumental celebration, kicking off a new era of American greatness, featuring special remarks by President Donald J. Trump. This kick-off event will take place at the Iowa State Fairgrounds, offering patriotism, excitement, inspiration, and a glimpse into the grand festivities planned for America’s 250th anniversary.”

Even people who support Trump need to recognize that many fellow citizens oppose him, and any kind of ceremony that focuses on him and invokes MAGA concepts will provoke opposition. In my view, such conflict is the most appropriate celebration of a free people, born in rebellion and accustomed to free speech and debate.

Rev. Johnson concludes, “In my heart, I still love my country. I love its messiness, its stubborn hope, its capacity to surprise. To love America means abstaining from turning a blind eye to its wounds. Loving our dear republic means asking hard questions at the cookout. Above all, love of country requires telling the truth—about the people still locked out of the celebration, about the freedoms that remain unfulfilled, about the dangers of settling for easy myths.”

There is little hope that America250 will tell these truths, but it doesn’t own the anniversary. The American people have an opportunity to celebrate our diverse community and to recommit to self-government.

In Ukraine: Building Civic Life Amid War

In this episode of The Stakes, host Brad Rourke speaks with Kettering Foundation Senior Fellow and retired Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Kettering board member and Tufts professor Peter Levine. They reflect on their recent experiences helping to build democracy and civil society in Ukraine—O’Connor working to vet candidates for the embattled Constitutional Court, and Levine teaching Civic Studies in a war-torn Kyiv.

Both offer firsthand insight into the resilience of Ukrainian civil society and the country’s struggle to build democratic institutions. O’Connor describes the bomb shelter where judicial reforms are being debated, and Levine details the micro-decisions citizens must make under constant threat. Together, they explore what the U.S. can learn from Ukraine’s resolve—and how psychological, civic, and symbolic support from the West matters more than ever.

youth trust in institutions

CIRCLE has released a detailed report on young people’s trust in various institutions, broken down by demographics and partisanship. They have also published an array of responses to their data by young leaders.

I recommend the whole product. As a teaser, I’m sharing one graph with this post. Note that the police are the second-most trusted institution, below “peers and neighbors” but above nonprofit organizations. White youth trust police at about twice the rate of Black youth.

Also interesting is the extremely low level of trust for social media and technology companies, which turns out to be driven by white youth. (Black youth trust social media somewhat more.)

Whether people should trust these institutions is a different question that is worth some reflection. CIRCLE shows that higher trust is related to voter turnout, so one drawback of deep distrust can be disengagement.

See also: CIRCLE report: How Does Gen Z Really Feel about Democracy? (April 9); to restore trust in schools and media, engage people in civic life