Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Where are the private-sector leaders in the battle to save our democracy?

Opinion

empty suit next to American flag

"As we watch with growing alarm as our democratic norms erode, one notable voice has been largely missing from the conversation: private-sector leadership," writes Radwell.

Sean Gladwell

Radwell is the author of “American Schism” and serves on the Business Council for Business for America.

Due to growing political divides, the United States is at the greatest risk since the Civil War. As a former CEO, I’d like to know why my fellow business leaders aren’t doing more to fix it.

Over the last decade our political debate has collapsed under the weight of toxic hyperpartisanship, and millions of our fellow citizens have lost faith in our established institutions. Both political parties are failing to deliver solutions for working-class citizens or to address the ever-increasing prosperity gap. As a result, Americans increasingly look outside the establishment for answers.

Indeed, our public sector no longer functions productively. A tidal wave of rage and resentment crowds out rational debate and the willingness to listen to other points of view. Empirical data, diverse viewpoints, reason and compromise are all essential to solve public policy problems. Yet these very elements seem completely missing today, and a deep cynicism has taken root across the country.


In my book “ American Schism ” (2022 International Book Award winner for best general nonfiction), I discuss the paradox of the “frustrated majority,” the 70 percent of Americans who recognize that our political system is broken and we must find a more productive way forward. Why is this a paradox? Because this group often remains silent, believing they are actually in the minority since the voices on the extreme left and right get the most media coverage and are pandered to by political candidates. It’s time for the moderate majority to take the lead.

As we watch with growing alarm as our democratic norms erode, one notable voice has been largely missing from the conversation: private-sector leadership. These individuals represent the most influential segment of the “frustrated majority” – but are also largely silent.

To be clear, business is heavily involved in government when advancing its own interests; one walk down K Street proves that. But when it comes to defending our fundamental democratic institutions, business leaders are even more likely t o keep their heads in the sand due to the risk of political blowback, being canceled or boycotted, or incurring the wrath of activist groups online.

Business for America, a nonpartisan business membership organization, is leading the charge to address this silence. BFA works with companies that want to help boost civic engagement, reduce political polarization and modernize government. In its recent “ Business Survey on Political Backlash,” the group confirmed that business leaders from firms both large and small feel that attacks on business are driven by political agendas and not a genuine desire to solve issues (93 percent of those surveyed). Further, over 80 percent of these leaders believe that attacks from political leaders on businesses is at an all-time high. Leaders’ top concerns are finding themselves in a PR crisis, consumer boycotts and retaliatory action from government officials.

So many C-level executives whom I know personally are afraid to speak out lest they attract the rage of some anonymous community, causing irreparable damage to their brand or their bottom line. While many of them remain silent, as the BFA survey indicates, the level of concern is very high. Why are private-sector leaders so reluctant to speak out and defend the open democratic society that has been fundamental to their liberty and success?

The irony of this situation is striking: Business leaders have mastered the practical tools to solve problems, which is precisely what is missing in our public policy sphere. These very leaders hold the key to breaking out of our impasse: in addition to their empirical problem-solving skills, their abilities to forge compromise and drive to consensus are the secret sauce that is missing today. And yet the very leaders who can shift the dynamic in our politics have been cowed into silence.

I propose that we can only move forward if the frustrated majority finds the courage to wrestle back the gavel from the partisan extremes who are running (what feels more and more like) an asylum. The leadership voices within this moderate majority group — especially my fellow business leaders — are the ones we desperately need to hear before time runs out on our democracy.

Read More

Is America Still Welcoming Global Talent?
Close up of american visa label in passport.
Getty Images/Alexander W. Helin

Is America Still Welcoming Global Talent?

A few weeks ago, when new proposals limiting J and F visa expansion were open for public comment, immigration quickly became a hot topic again at our research center, where more than half the scientists come from abroad. Some worried about their plan, others traded news and updates about the H1-B. A colleague asked if I was anxious too. To my own surprise, I wasn’t.

I used to be. But after weathering turbulent visa policies under different U.S. administrations, like many other international scholars, I have learned to stay flexible and mobile. My U.S. visa for a graduate program was delayed due to tensions between the U.S. and China several years ago. Up against a deadline for the program, I pivoted to Japan to continue the research training. What felt like a closed door became a new window: I fortunately joined a world-class team in tissue-engineering vascular medicine, broadened my view of clinical care and research, and began bridging my path as both practitioner and scientist. Committed to strengthening the “bench-to-bed” pipeline—learning real-world needs and translating research to meet them—I chose the United States again to carry this work forward.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of a train passing by quickly.

The proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern could create America’s first coast-to-coast freight rail system.

Rail Merger Holds Promise for the Economy

Boosting domestic industry and manufacturing continues to be a key economic theme. A recently proposed merger between two major railroad companies could advance those goals—and it carries particular promise for underserved communities who are often on the front lines of America’s workforce.

The merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern would create the nation’s first transcontinental freight rail system, a vision pursued since 1869, when the “golden spike” famously connected the east and west.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

"Just the Facts" on the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee, its impact on tech firms, startups, and healthcare, plus legal challenges and alternatives for skilled workers.

Getty Images, Popartic

Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What Is the $100,000 Visa Fee?

This is a new one-time $100,000 application fee for employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. The visa is designed for highly skilled professionals in fields like tech, medicine, and engineering.

Keep ReadingShow less
Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

Dave Anderson shares how the Fed’s rate cuts reveal misconceptions about fiscal vs. monetary policy and government intervention in U.S. free markets.

Getty Images, Royalty-free

Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

The Federal Reserve Board's move on Wednesday, Sept. 17, to lower the federal funds interest rate by one-quarter of a point signals that it is a good time to discuss a major misconception that most voters have about public policy.

It is typically assumed that Democrats stand for government intervention into free markets to counteract the inherent bias towards those who are more economically well off. It is also assumed that Republicans, in contrast, reject the idea of government intervention in free markets because it violates rights to property and the natural order of free markets, which promotes the greatest total welfare.

Keep ReadingShow less