On this episode of Both Sides, Allan and Mike talk to elections Commissioner Benjamin Hovland. Commissioner Hovland serves on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Listen in as they talk conspiracy theories and election security.
From the sustained community organizing that followed Mozambique's 2024 elections to the student-led civic protests in Serbia, the world is full of reminders that the future of democracy is ours to shape.
The world is at a critical juncture. People everywhere are facing multiple, concurrent threats including extreme wealth concentration, attacks on democratic freedoms, and various humanitarian crises.
Instead of a world characterized by exploitation, eradication, and diminishment of political expression, we need a bold new social contract in which democracy evolves into a lived expression of political values that are centered on a relentless commitment to the collective well-being of our societies and the planet.
Reining in Extreme Wealth
The staggering concentration of wealth in the hands of a select few casts a long shadow over democracy. Not only does it create wealth inequality but it also it produces and exacerbates other inequalities like race and gender.
In 2024, the richest 1% of people worldwide owned more than the bottom 95% combined. And it's not just global inequality that has grown; inequality within countries has also become worse. This level of inequality is eroding trust in institutions, which in turn is weakening democracies. In Indonesia, for example, people "who believe socio-economic inequality is unjust, are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward democracy."
Beyond breaking public trust, extreme wealth has been used to sway the political landscape, often at the expense of the common good. While the relationship between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk received much scrutiny, relationships between the ultra-wealthy and anti-democratic leaders are not unique to the US. In India, billionaires like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Andani have been longtime supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party. Billionaire Eduardo Eurnekian's backing of Javier Milei in Argentina and Lajos Simicska's role in the rise of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary are other examples.
This corrosive impact of extreme wealth on democracy is undeniable and must be reined in. One way of doing this is through the effective taxation of wealth. According to the Tax Justice Network, a well-implemented wealth tax that is "flanked by globally coordinated measures to disallow tax abuse" could raise more than US $2 trillion. This would provide a stable source of revenue for countries and would also contribute toward the redistribution of wealth and security.
Redistribution alone, however, will not solve inequality. In South Africa, for instance, the wealthiest 1% have seen their pretax incomes soar by nearly 80%, while the poorest 20% have watched theirs shrink. This stark contrast reveals that any redistribution must be paired with policies that shape how pretax incomes are distributed in the first place. Tackling the deep-rooted imbalances of power and opportunity that stem from unequal ownership is crucial alongside enforcing robust antitrust measures to break up corporate dominance and stop unfair business practices.
Restitching the Unravelling Social Safety Net
Public institutions that provide public services are on the decline. Social spending has decreased worldwide, especially health care. From South Africa to Britain, people's struggle to access essential services like health care has resulted in a distrust of the political system. Anxiety over the perception that immigrants are overwhelming public resources is also rising. Using data from across 30 European countries, scholars have traced how ill health translates into anti-immigrant sentiment.
The unravelling social safety net has created an environment where exclusionary ideologies easily spread. Declining public services play a role in the surge of right-wing populist and nativist sentiment. Unscrupulous politicians use the tension to distract from their failures by scapegoating immigrants.
The chainsaws being taken to social spending that have now been popularized by figures like Milei and Musk must be rejected. Public services, which have been key in reducing global poverty and redistributing wealth and security, are an essential investment in communities and society.
Of course, reining in extreme wealth and increasing social spending are not silver bullet solutions for revitalizing democracy. More is needed, including dismantling corporate power, providing material security, global and countrywide wealth redistribution, and reparations. Each of these options reflects a commitment to the common good.
It is time for us to acknowledge the depth of inequality that exists and act in ways that benefit the needs of all and the planet, rather than the narrow self-interests of the few. Working toward collective freedom, shared prosperity, justice, and dignity is the only meaningful way forward.
This article was originally published as part of Resilience & Resistance, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that features the insights of thought leaders and practitioners who are working to expand and support inclusive democracies around the globe.Koketso Moeti has a long background in civic activism and has over the years worked at the intersection of governance, communication, and people power. In 2025, she was announced as a Charles F. Kettering Global Fellow.
Resilience & Resistance is a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that features the insights of thought leaders and practitioners who are working to expand and support inclusive democracies around the globe. Direct any queries to globalteam@kettering.org.
From the sustained community organizing that followed Mozambique's 2024 elections to the student-led civic protests in Serbia, the world is full of reminders that the future of democracy is ours to shape.
The world is at a critical juncture. People everywhere are facing multiple, concurrent threats including extreme wealth concentration, attacks on democratic freedoms, and various humanitarian crises.
Instead of a world characterized by exploitation, eradication, and diminishment of political expression, we need a bold new social contract in which democracy evolves into a lived expression of political values that are centered on a relentless commitment to the collective well-being of our societies and the planet.
Reining in Extreme Wealth
The staggering concentration of wealth in the hands of a select few casts a long shadow over democracy. Not only does it create wealth inequality but it also it produces and exacerbates other inequalities like race and gender.
In 2024, the richest 1% of people worldwide owned more than the bottom 95% combined. And it's not just global inequality that has grown; inequality within countries has also become worse. This level of inequality is eroding trust in institutions, which in turn is weakening democracies. In Indonesia, for example, people "who believe socio-economic inequality is unjust, are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward democracy."
Beyond breaking public trust, extreme wealth has been used to sway the political landscape, often at the expense of the common good. While the relationship between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk received much scrutiny, relationships between the ultra-wealthy and anti-democratic leaders are not unique to the US. In India, billionaires like Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Andani have been longtime supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party. Billionaire Eduardo Eurnekian's backing of Javier Milei in Argentina and Lajos Simicska's role in the rise of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary are other examples.
This corrosive impact of extreme wealth on democracy is undeniable and must be reined in. One way of doing this is through the effective taxation of wealth. According to the Tax Justice Network, a well-implemented wealth tax that is "flanked by globally coordinated measures to disallow tax abuse" could raise more than US $2 trillion. This would provide a stable source of revenue for countries and would also contribute toward the redistribution of wealth and security.
Redistribution alone, however, will not solve inequality. In South Africa, for instance, the wealthiest 1% have seen their pretax incomes soar by nearly 80%, while the poorest 20% have watched theirs shrink. This stark contrast reveals that any redistribution must be paired with policies that shape how pretax incomes are distributed in the first place. Tackling the deep-rooted imbalances of power and opportunity that stem from unequal ownership is crucial alongside enforcing robust antitrust measures to break up corporate dominance and stop unfair business practices.
Restitching the Unravelling Social Safety Net
Public institutions that provide public services are on the decline. Social spending has decreased worldwide, especially health care. From South Africa to Britain, people's struggle to access essential services like health care has resulted in a distrust of the political system. Anxiety over the perception that immigrants are overwhelming public resources is also rising. Using data from across 30 European countries, scholars have traced how ill health translates into anti-immigrant sentiment.
The unravelling social safety net has created an environment where exclusionary ideologies easily spread. Declining public services play a role in the surge of right-wing populist and nativist sentiment. Unscrupulous politicians use the tension to distract from their failures by scapegoating immigrants.
The chainsaws being taken to social spending that have now been popularized by figures like Milei and Musk must be rejected. Public services, which have been key in reducing global poverty and redistributing wealth and security, are an essential investment in communities and society.
Of course, reining in extreme wealth and increasing social spending are not silver bullet solutions for revitalizing democracy. More is needed, including dismantling corporate power, providing material security, global and countrywide wealth redistribution, and reparations. Each of these options reflects a commitment to the common good.
It is time for us to acknowledge the depth of inequality that exists and act in ways that benefit the needs of all and the planet, rather than the narrow self-interests of the few. Working toward collective freedom, shared prosperity, justice, and dignity is the only meaningful way forward.
This article was originally published as part of Resilience & Resistance, a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that features the insights of thought leaders and practitioners who are working to expand and support inclusive democracies around the globe.Koketso Moeti has a long background in civic activism and has over the years worked at the intersection of governance, communication, and people power. In 2025, she was announced as a Charles F. Kettering Global Fellow.
Resilience & Resistance is a Charles F. Kettering Foundation blog series that features the insights of thought leaders and practitioners who are working to expand and support inclusive democracies around the globe. Direct any queries to globalteam@kettering.org.
Both parties could benefit from backing Independent candidates in tough races—reducing polarization, increasing leverage in Congress, and reshaping U.S. politics.
The Democratic Party sent a strong message to President Trump and the Republican Party in the 2025 elections, but ironically one part of their overall strategy forward should be to support Independents in House and Senate races where the chances of victory for a Democratic candidate are low.
Double irony: Republicans should employ the same strategy. Triple irony: If both parties pursue this strategy, then this would both serve their self-interest and be in the best interest of the country overall.
The reason the Democrats would be wise to support Independents rather than Democrats is that it is to their advantage to have Independents elected rather than Republicans, and the reason the Republicans would be wise to vote for Independents rather than Republicans is that it is to their advantage to have Independents elected rather than Democrats.
Theoretically, we could end up with a Senate which had, say, six Independents and 94 Democrats and Republicans, suppose 47 vs 47. In the House, a similar dynamic could ensue.
States with historic traditions of substantial independent voters and states which have recently seen a rise of independent voters include New Hampshire, Vermont, Nebraska, Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Iowa, Nevada, and Arizona.
A case study would be Nebraska, where Dan Osborn, a Union Leader who became an Independent, ran for the Senate in 2024 and came fairly close to winning. He is running for the Senate again in 2026.
Other 2026 races where Independents have a fighting chance include the race for governor in Michigan where Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, a Democrat, is running as an Independent, Ty Pinkins who is running for the U.S. Senate in Mississippi, and Todd Achilles who is running for the U.S. Senate in Idaho.
Having five to six Independents in the Senate would provide a bloc of members which could get them to the majority where only a majority was needed (e.g., on reconciliation bills) and to sixty votes where major policy bills required sixty votes.
There are many factors which might lead to an Independent winning a seat in the Senate or the House, with support coming from the major parties being only one of the factors. Support from an Independent PAC or Independent voters would also be important.
Apart from serving their self-interest, Republicans and Democrats, ranging from members to voters to major donors, would presumably benefit from a legislative system that was less polarized, hostile, and dysfunctional. Independents would benefit, members and voters and major donors, because they would finally get representation on Capitol Hill. The Independent bloc would not have equal power to the Republicans and Democrats, but it would possess incredible leverage.
Dartmouth economist Charles Wheelan developed "the fulcrum strategy" in The Centrist Manifesto. His important book, however, speaks for Independents as a Third Party. That approach requires that Independents, who are a diverse group, become a unified group. Centrist third parties, though they work on paper, have not been effective in electoral politics.
The approach advocated here follows the "tripartisanship" model I have developed the last few years in a series of previous columns. We need the fulcrum strategy, but it should be used to unite a diverse group of independents.
I do not imagine that they would all vote together all the time. Indeed, four or five Senators joining the majority party and several defectors from the minority party might be sufficient to get sixty votes.
I imagine, though, that the Independents would basically rotate from supporting Democratic or Republican initiatives depending on who, if either party, had majority control of the chamber in question. If the split in the Senate was 53/41/6, then five votes from Independents and two votes from the minority party would get to sixty. This Senate might have to give the minority party some bills, otherwise they might not be able to get defectors from the party line.
Thus, I don't see Independents being centrists on the ideological spectrum. I see them as a diverse group, where pragmatism would be the chief but not only theme that motivates them. These independents would want to keep their seats having made certain ideological commitments to their voters as well as a commitment to end dysfunction on Capitol Hill.
Motivation in human life is often a complex phenomenon that is based on multiple factors. Dysfunction and hostility on Capitol Hill could ultimately be controlled if not eliminated if the two major parties helped to grow the third force in American politics both for their own sake and the sake of the country itself.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities, and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
AI may disrupt the workplace, but with smart investment in workforce transitions and innovation, the economy can bend without breaking—unlocking growth and new opportunities.
Everyone has a stake in keeping the unemployment rate low. A single percentage point increase in unemployment is tied to a jump in the poverty rate of about 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points. Higher rates of unemployment are likewise associated with an increase in rates of depression among the unemployed and, in some cases, reduced mental health among their family members. Based on that finding, it's unsurprising that higher rates of unemployment are also correlated with higher rates of divorce. Finally, and somewhat obviously, unemployment leads to a surge in social safety spending. Everyone benefits when more folks have meaningful, high-paying work.
That’s why everyone needs to pay attention to the very real possibility that AI will lead to at least a temporary surge in unemployment. Economists vary in their estimates of how AI will lead to displacement. Gather three economists together, and they’ll probably offer nine different predictions—they’ll tell you that AI is advancing at different rates in different fields, that professions vary in their willingness to adopt AI, and that a shifting regulatory framework is likely to diminish AI use in some sectors. And, of course, they’re right!
Given that we all have a stake in navigating this uncertain unemployment picture, we need to lean into a bend, but don’t break economy: one in which AI is accepted as a driver of innovation, as well as a disruptor of the status quo, but not a destroyer of economic well-being and opportunity. AI, like waves of prior technology, can spur the sort of productivity gains that are associated with economic growth that benefits us all. A brief by the Penn Wharton Budget Model forecasts productivity gains and related increases in GDP of 1.5% by 2035 and around 3% by 2055.
While GDP is not a measure of human well-being nor economic security among the public, it’s a signal of growth and economic opportunity that at least presents us with the opportunity to invest more in our communities, institutions, and innovators. Those eager to put AI back in the bottle risk depriving Americans of the chance to help build the future by learning new skills and starting new ventures. As summarized by Robert D. Atkinson, “Without productivity growth to create a ‘bigger pie’ there is no way for living standards to increase, especially given that the worker-to-retiree ratio will decline over the next two decades as baby boomers retire.”
The key is that we invest more in the transition period between the jobs of today and those of tomorrow. Our track record on this front is sorely lacking. Retraining programs tend not to lead to long-term increases in earnings. Focused on helping displaced workers find “in-demand” jobs, these programs are more focused on the immediate needs of employers rather than the future well-being of the employee. For example, many programs direct participants into low-wage, high-turnover roles such as certified nursing assistant positions and long-haul trucking.
A clearer, more reliable path toward economic security in the Age of AI is necessary so that people do not fear technology but rather embrace it and the growth it may bring about. A few policy proposals can move us in that direction. For one, we should replicate and scale up the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) program. This effort may have saved more than 1,000 jobs through investments in novel projects across the country. A similar approach—private-public efforts that invest in emerging opportunities in regional economic hubs—could be applied across several sectors.
Second, it's time to reauthorize and expand the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs. Developed as part of America's Seed Feed, these programs target U.S. small businesses as engines of innovation and new jobs. Over the course of 1995-2017, support for small businesses resulted in an average of 65,000 jobs per year. That’s an incredible record of success that deserves ongoing support.
In sum, fear-mongering about the economic disruptions posed by AI is at odds with historical precedent and is unproductive. “Historically,” based on research by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), “the income-generating effects of new technologies have proved more powerful than the labor-displacing effects: technological progress has been accompanied not only by higher output and productivity, but also by higher overall employment.” Speculative reports and exaggerated headlines deny this reality and undermine efforts to invest in transition programs.
The progress forecasted by the OECD will only be paired with societal progress if we take the creation of economic bridges seriously—let’s help people connect to the jobs of the future rather than rile them up in defense of the status quo.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and author of the Appleseed AI substack.
