Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Schultz will spend a fortune on democracy reform instead of a presidential run

Howard Schultz

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz speaks about the dysfunctional political climate in Washington during a stop at Miami Dade College in Florida in March.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Billionaire Howard Schultz will spend more than $100 million fixing democracy instead of waging a presidential campaign, he announced Friday.

If the former Starbucks CEO follows through on the vow, it would represent one of the biggest and potentially most transformative infusions of cash ever to flow into efforts to improve American governance to good working order.

In January, Schultz announced he was considering a campaign for the presidency as an independent, on a platform nearly exclusively focused on addressing government gridlock and dysfunction. But the potential run was also seen as a threat to an eventual Democratic president nominee, who might lose enough votes to Schultz to assure the re-election of President Trump.

On Friday, Schultz announced he would abandon the idea of running and would instead redirect his efforts on "supporting bold and creative initiatives to transform our broken system and address the disparity of opportunity that plagues our nation," he wrote on his website.


"Statistically and anecdotally, there is an undeniable appetite for meaningful political reform in America," he said. "I had hoped to represent this common-sense view, but I've come to face a few truths about this moment in time."

Schultz went on to say that despite an appetite for reform among an "exhausted majority" of Americans, "extreme voices" are shaping political debates and those voices are drowning out "thoughtful discussions" to fix the political system.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

"In addition," he said, "not enough people today are willing to consider backing an independent candidate because they fear doing so might lead to re-electing a uniquely dangerous incumbent president."

The 66-year-old former corporate executive also acknowledged that his candidacy might take votes away from a potential moderate Democrat on the ballot, "and that is not a risk I am willing to take."

Shultz had previously said that, were he to run for president, he was willing to devote more than $100 million of his own fortune to the cause. He did not cite that number in his online letter to supporters, and he did not detail the specific items on the democracy reform agenda that he would support or whom he'd tap to carry out the priorities.

What he did say was: "The money that I was prepared to commit to a presidential campaign will instead be used to invest in people, organizations and ideas that promote honesty, civility and results in our politics, and that move the country beyond two-party gridlock."

Shultz announced in June 2018 that he was leaving Starbucks after running and steadily expanding the company for more than 30 years. Seven months later, he said he would travel the country to promote his ideas as part of a book tour, and he had taken preliminary steps toward getting on the ballots of all 50 states.

But his plans were paused by some significant back trouble this spring. And, all along, the prospects for running as an independent were complicated by more than the antagonism of Democrats furious that he'd be a spoiler who'd succeed only in helping Trump. History shows third-party candidacies rarely blossom. Since the Civil War only four minor-party candidates have won at least 10 percent of the vote — the last Ross Perot in 1992. The last to win electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less