Questions of Civic Proportions delivers questions, ideas, and good work from a political life worth sharing.
It’s a power-up for the civic-minded.
Each newsletter is a small act of thinking together, delivered twice a month, that transforms the endless scroll of headlines into questions aligned to American political thought and constitutional thinking.
We believe public dialogue is a civic duty but you need good questions. It’s not talking politics. It’s sharing what we can learn about political life.
With our Questions of Civic Proportions Newsletter, you’ll always have good questions.
Questions of Civic Proportions are questions that deserve your time. Let’s make it easier to start thinking together.
Join a community that believes in the power of thinking together.
We designed our Questions of Civic Proportions Newsletter to help you tune your attention to the questions, ideas, and good work of a political life worth sharing. Subscribe to get a copy and let us know what you think.
We will never share your address or any other information without your permission.
"Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers."—Voltaire
Our Latest Questions
The answer is equal parts art and democracy, but we have everything we need. The trending stories on social media continue to focus on broken norms and lost time, but there’s another story to talk about in this last month of 2020.
What if the year ahead is full of possibilities?
This is our remedy for the doom scrolling that accompanied the following of election results and court challenges. With that political moment behind us (mostly), it’s time to turn our attention to complex questions again.
“It feels like America is at a fault line. Like this is an end of an era,” a foreign journalist reflects on our recent election. If you have spent these last couple of weeks feeling like you’re managing an emergency situation, this fault line explains that too.
With election results decided (no concession required), academics have started debating the use of the word “coup” and whether or not the U.S. survived an autocratic attempt. Political observers insist that American institutions have proven themselves and will continue to hold. The wheels of American democracy continue to roll forward.
There’s a new trend on social media. Get in line to vote and start the stopwatch on your phone. Once you’ve cast your ballot, post a screenshot so we all know how long you were willing to wait.
We’re celebrating these stories as feats of persistence. The people will vote. Neither a pandemic nor shifting voting rules will turn them away.
This public mind is tired. When discussing the Supreme Court nomination on a recent podcast, Dahlia Lithwick said she felt like a “boxing kangaroo.” She has to keep punching without ever knowing if her punches are making a difference. Just keep punching.
I wondered if democracy has always made punching kangaroos of its people. That was almost the theme this week.
Suckers and losers. Again, we all had to ask the question of whether or not President Trump is fit to serve as Commander-in-Chief. We’ve been here before. We’re stuck in a loop.
Responding to Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic, “Trump: Americans Who Died in War are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers,” the political punditry returned to a question they have asked many times before: why don’t we ever hear from General Mattis or General Kelly?
Athletes have a playbook with moves we all have to learn to execute. The question of who will play the game and who will not transcends the court.
One of the most iconic images in sports comes from the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. Tommie Smith and John Carlos, two members of the U.S. track team, raised their gloved fists while the national anthem played. In his autobiography, John Carlos described the moment as being in the eye of a hurricane, “There’s something awful about hearing fifty thousand people go silent.” (Quoted in The Atlantic)
Questions of Civic Proportions: Can We Chase Down All the Dead Ideas that Hurt Women Who Run for Office?
I wanted to know why Katy put her picture on her yard sign. I naively thought the decision came as a result of her side hustle as a realtor. I also hated that Katy ran with her first name, “Vote for Katy.” I hadn’t seen male candidates use either of these strategies.
A more experienced campaign hand explained it to me: Katy wanted people to see how likable she was…