A river begins with a single drop of melted snow on a mountain, just a silver thread trickling downhill. That one drop is joined by others, each one adding weight and motion, carving a deeper path as they go. Bit by bit, their gentle flow becomes a stream, then a river, shaped by every rock they move and every turn they take. No single drop makes the river alone—it forms through a chain of small causes building on one another. The river, like all great things, is the result of many moments adding up over time.
I find myself navigating different but converging spaces these days, much like ever increasing streams coming together to flow into a river. On the one side of this metaphorical riverbank, organizers and political strategists discuss ways to bring more folks into the electoral work that will transform Indiana. This can look like hyper-local precinct-level engagement, candidate recruitment for local and state office, volunteer support for party and campaign operations, or a myriad of other avenues of targeted engagement to increase voter turnout and win elected races. We need this investment desperately.
On the other side, we have the daily erosion of civil liberties and the clear and present danger of a Constitutional Crisis. Small groups are gathering to study books, build mutual aid networks, organize protests, and other ways to remain committed to defending democracy, resisting tyranny, and denouncing authoritarian regimes. Activists and scholars raise fists, signs, and loud alarms to wake folks up to the reality emerging around them. The urgency and tension are palpable.
And these tributaries are converging into a great and powerful river. But where they meet can look like a churning, chaotic mess.
To one, accusations of “status quo” or “establishment” get hurled around on social media without regard to the greater audience watching the unraveling and reorganization of a party. (An older generation would describe this as “airing dirty laundry in public”. The younger generations call it “being honest and real”.) To the other, questions around understanding power or what the plan is after the next protest are often met with legitimate statements of “We don’t know yet, but we have to do something to fight back. Everyone else is being ‘too nice’.” When in doubt, “F* the Fascists” works well for many.
Perhaps I can blame it on the algorithms or divine providence, but either way, in the same week that I’ve witnessed escalating tensions, I’ve read some wonderful articles that name the very thing resonating deeply within me. In “The Reckoning That Wasn’t” by Anand Giridharadas, I’m haunted by the words “lack of curiosity”. That has seemed to me to sum up this moment for me. There is a profound lack of curiosity as to WHY someone does something, holds the beliefs they do, values things so very differently, or even identifies with a party or cause that has become completely abhorrent in this moment of driven absolutes. It takes a determined intentionality to not “other” someone. It is even harder when differences are being actively weaponized through propaganda. When you determine to hold that tension, you risk losing support from your own base, as though it is some moral failing or failed loyalty test to refuse to dehumanize anyone. (My own faith background offers a framework that is explored more deeply in the excellent book by Melissa Florer-Bixler “How to Have An Enemy: Righteous Anger & the Work of Peace”.)
As I recently discussed with Debbie Asberry from Hoosiers for Democracy and Amy Courtney from MADVoters, when discussing the above article, I think two things are happening that get conflated. Folks are desiring accountability and justice be served to the Trump administration AND in the absence of that, they are continually drawing new lines in the sand of where they will or will not engage. Curiosity is indeed a thing, but as we move more and more into fundamentalism and authoritarian thinking, curiosity becomes collateral damage to public shunning. And yet, for me as a state candidate, I must maintain curiosity in order to build local relationships. As an elected representative, my role will be to represent all constituents, not just those who vote for me. I am specifically running for office because my current representative is not listening to constituents like me who are calling for change in policy around healthcare, housing, environment, while enacting a state budget that actively harms Hoosiers. [For a great essay on the myth of “America is a republic”, check out James Greenberg’s recent Facebook post. “The Founders didn’t fear democracy because they equated it with chaos. They feared unchecked power—by kings, mobs, or capital. What they built was a representative system rooted in popular sovereignty. Rights were not designed to limit the people, but to protect them from domination…Democracy wasn’t the threat. It was the answer to tyranny.”]
With a federal government increasingly leaning more towards tyranny, how do I hold the tension of resistance and curiosity? It lies in a better understanding of accountability. I must maintain curiosity towards policies like Trump’s aim at lowering prescription drug prices, which includes this statement “to make progress on reducing price disparities at home and expand those efforts by including Medicaid in addition to Medicare” [bold for effect]. The same administration actively trying to gut Medicaid on one hand is championing its inclusion on the other. How can we hold the federal administration accountable for Medicaid so that Hoosiers don’t lose more access through state trigger* laws?
Will this Executive Order prevail? Very doubtful. They are not addressing any of the exploitative profiteering by Big Pharma and Big Insurance, who are now being pitted against each other. (Now, there’s an episode of The Apprentice I didn’t expect to see!) But I am curious - what happens if we collectively champion this particular Executive Order by demanding these cost reductions and Medicaid protections? What does curiosity and accountability look like operating side-by-side?
[*Republican state legislators have enacted trigger laws to defund Medicaid. Indiana's original trigger law mandated that if the federal match rate for Medicaid expansion dropped below 90%, the HIP program would automatically terminate unless the state legislature took action to continue it. This provision was designed to protect the state from unexpected financial burdens due to reduced federal funding.
In 2025, Indiana enacted Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), which amended the trigger law. The revised law provides the state with discretion to decide whether to continue or end the HIP program if the federal match falls below 90%, rather than mandating automatic termination. This change offers the state more flexibility in responding to potential federal funding cuts.]
