Americans expect the Supreme Court to be nonpartisan, but was that always the case? In this episode of You Don't Have to Yell, historian Rachel Shelden discusses how Lincoln appointed his campaign manager to the Court, later expanded it for a pro-Union justice, and how voters thought this was all normal.
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.
In October, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) introduced federal legislation to establish a federal guaranteed income pilot program.
In 2018, Moriah Rodriguez was in a car accident that left her with a traumatic brain injury and unable to work. A few years later, she and her four children were on the brink of homelessness when she enrolled in the Denver Basic Income Project.
Rodriguez, who now serves on the DBIP Board of Directors, used the unconditional cash transfers provided through the program to find a place to live and pay off debt. She believes that, if not for the program, her life would be fundamentally different.
“I don’t believe that the way that the system is set up is giving people the opportunity to be successful,” Rodriguez said.
The Denver Basic Income Project is one of many city- and county-wide guaranteed income pilot programs throughout the country. These initiatives, which gained popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, are experimental and provide cash payments to specific groups for a limited time to study their effects.
In October, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) introduced federal legislation to establish a guaranteed-income pilot program. The congresswoman has advocated for the initiative in past legislative sessions, citing rising economic inequality as proof of the program’s necessity.
“The greedy are getting the majority and the needy are becoming even more needy,” Watson Coleman said. “That’s un-American as far as I'm concerned.”
Watson Coleman said that guaranteed income can lessen economic struggle by plainly distributing resources and avoiding government bureaucracy.
Researchers echoed this sentiment. They say cash is flexible, non-paternalistic, and efficient.
“People want guaranteed income to do all the things, right? And that’s really because cash can do all the things,” said Misuzu Schexnider, who works at UChicago’s Inclusive Economy Lab. “It’s really one of the few interventions that can help people achieve their goals, regardless of what the goal is.”
However, Schexnider said that this versatility can make the impact of these programs difficult to measure.
Benjamin Henwood, the director of the Center for Homelessness, Housing and Health Equity Research at USC, expressed a similar concern. In a study exploring the impact of cash distributions to people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Henwood found that while recipients of the transfer were more likely to report not being unhoused, there was no statistically significant change that could be attributed to the cash transfer.
Henwood described the cash transfers as “incremental, not transformational” and said the small amount of money transferred and the short duration of the program might have limited the intervention's statistical efficacy.
Still, the Denver Basic Income Project, which to date has deployed $10.8 million to over 800 families and individuals, found that almost half of participants reported moving into stable independent housing within a year, a decisive success.
And, while the quantitative data from these pilot studies can be a mixed bag, the qualitative stories that these studies gather from participants, like Rodriguez, are “overwhelmingly positive,” Schexnider said.
Both Schexnider and Henwood also emphasized that their findings run counter to the stigma often associated with welfare programs.
Welfare is often mired in a societal belief that equates receiving assistance with personal failure, like laziness or irresponsibility. Some assume that participants will spend the additional money on what Henwood calls “temptation goods,” like drugs or alcohol.
The researchers said these beliefs are simply not true. In fact, Henwood noted that his study was just as much about proving that basic income did not lead to an increase in the purchase of temptation goods as it was about demonstrating the intervention's success.
Meanwhile, in a basic income study conducted by the non-profit OpenResearch, Schexnider said recipients worked fewer hours, but only by a few hours each week. She noted that most spent the additional time on childcare, transportation, or much-needed rest.
“For some in our country and globally, it’s a bit of a convenient myth — convenient for some — to paint people with low income as somehow lazy and deficient. And the data doesn’t bear that out,” said Elizabeth Crowe, the coordinator of the Elevate Boulder Guaranteed Income Program.
These researchers all welcomed the idea of a federal program, but highlighted the necessity for concrete, outcome-driven details in the project’s proposal.
Under the proposed legislation, the federal pilot program would last 3 years, and 10,000 participants would receive a monthly cash payment equal to the fair market rent for a 2-bedroom home in the ZIP Code where they reside. Watson Coleman said she would leave the details, such as who is eligible for the program, to “authentic technicians” or experts in the field.
Part of the researchers’ support stems from the fact that the program is not novel. Aside from initiatives like the Denver Basic Income Project, cash transfers are often considered the standard in charitable giving. And Schexnider said there are already successful federal programs that are essentially cash transfers, such as the Child Tax Credit.
For Gwen Battis, the project manager for the DBIP, the federal pilot program is an “inevitable need.”
“As AI takes jobs, we’re going to need a way to participate in the economy and pay for things,” she said.
In highlighting the effect of AI on employment, Battis hits upon a key driver in the movement for basic income.
Not only is the country experiencing record income inequality, but there are also questions about how artificial intelligence will negatively impact the job market.
Technology executives have indicated that they aspire to create artificial general intelligence, a machine capable of performing all the economically valuable work humans do on a day-to-day basis.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI start-up Anthropic, told Axios that AI could soon wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs.
“Most [lawmakers] are unaware that this is about to happen," Amodei said. “It sounds crazy, and people just don’t believe it."
In recent years, Republican lawmakers at the state level have pushed back against guaranteed-income pilot programs.
Legislators in states like Arizona, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin have all introduced bills to ban income programs. They say such programs make participants overly reliant on the government.
State Rep. John Gillette of Arizona told Business Insider last year that guaranteed income programs are “socialist” and a “killer for the economy.”
“Is money a birthright now?” Gillette asked. “Do we just get born and get money from the government? Because I think the Founding Fathers would say that is very contrary to our capitalist system and encouraging people to work.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a county in his state to block a basic income program. In the legal filing, he called the initiative a “socialist experiment” that was an “illegal and illegitimate government overreach.”
While their Republican counterparts in the U.S. Congress have yet to comment directly on the federal basic income bill, they have shown reticence toward more expansive welfare policies.
The House resoundingly passed a resolution on Nov. 21 that denounced the “horrors of socialism.” No Republican lawmaker voted against the measure, and 86 Democrats joined Republicans to approve it.
Some are also skeptical about the practical reality of the basic income proposal and other expansive welfare policies.
In his home state, Grady Lowery, a lecturer at the University of Tennessee, said politicians are actively presenting their state as a haven for those escaping the “socialist” New York and its mayor-elect, Zohran Mamdani.
“Not only is there not support for Mamdani here, there’s active fear and hostility towards this kind of socialist dictatorial figure that he represents,” Lowery said.
Lowery said the bill might have potential if the legislators could avoid the “socialist pejorative label,” which they have already garnered.
Watson Coleman is undeterred. The bill is now pending in the House Ways and Means Committee.
“I don't care if we're in this administration that didn't want to shelter, didn't want to feed, and didn't want to give health care to (people),” Watson-Coleman said. “I’m still going to advance my legislation that I think is legitimate work for the federal government to do.”
Sophie Baker covers politics for Medill on the Hill. She is a sophomore from Utah studying journalism and political science at Northwestern University. On campus, she writes for The Daily Northwestern, where she has served as an assistant city editor.
Two weeks ago, more than 50 kids gathered at Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida, not for the roller coasters or the holiday decorations, but to be legally united with their “forever” families.
Events like this happened across the country in November in celebration of National Adoption Month. When President Bill Clinton established the observance in 1995 to celebrate and encourage adoption as “a means for building and strengthening families,” he noted that “much work remains to be done.” Thirty years later, that work has only grown.
Adoption in the United States is declining. International adoptions have plummeted from a high of nearly 23,000 in 2004 to under 1,300 in 2023. Some of this is due to policy changes curtailing adoption from countries that once made up most foreign adoptees, but the shift doesn’t end there. Domestic U.S. adoptions from foster care have fallen as well and are now at their lowest level since 2003.
This is not because the need has disappeared. There are 117,000 children in the U.S. foster care system waiting to be adopted. Globally, the number of waiting children is estimated in the tens of millions – including from the countries from which American families can still adopt.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans desperately want to be parents. Nearly 1 in 5 married women aged 15-49 have experienced infertility, and demand for IVF and surrogacy is soaring. An astonishing 10% of American women of child-bearing age have undergone some kind of fertility treatment, guided by doctors who focus almost exclusively on medical interventions, rarely discussing adoption at all.
There are so many children who need families—and families who need children—yet adoption remains an afterthought. Eighty-six percent of Americans say they have a positive view of adoption. Almost 40% say they’ve considered it. But fewer than 1% have adopted. As sociologist Allen Fisher writes, “adoption is a possibility that is often considered, but seldom chosen”.
Why the gap between interest and action?
There are fears about the unknowns, the emotional toll, or how friends or family will react. There is the unsettling feeling of relinquishing control over one of life’s most consequential decisions. These are real concerns that need to be thoughtfully weighed and considered. For those who decide to move forward, they must then contend with the financial costs and bureaucratic hurdles from multiple governmental and non-profit agencies–and, in international cases, two different countries.
An intercountry adoption can take years to complete, and wait times are only increasing, leaving children in limbo longer despite the harm this causes them. As the National Council for Adoption has advocated, this is in part because “rather than forging new partnerships and engaging in active diplomacy, the State Department has settled into regulatory box-checking.” Congress has the opportunity–and the responsibility–to hold the State Department accountable for prioritizing children's needs and restoring adoption pathways that will give more children loving, permanent homes, sooner.
On the domestic front, urgent action is needed as well. In a promising step, President Trump signed an Executive Order two weeks ago directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to modernize the child welfare system by reducing unnecessary paperwork and improving transparency, efficiency, and outcomes for American foster youth. The initiative could be transformative - but only if the 962-word order is followed-up with real, concrete actions and tangible policy changes. That work is only now beginning.
Despite the imperfections and challenges, I know firsthand that adoption remains one of the most meaningful decisions a family can make. After years of paperwork–home studies, background checks, financial reports, and recommendation letters–that were more exhaustive than a college or job application, my husband and I adopted a little boy in 2021. In addition to the anxiety of a global pandemic, we added the general nervousness of first-time parents and the unique questions that come with adoption. What happened in the years before we met our child? What would it mean to parent a child not biologically related? Would that change the love we felt?
It didn’t. We love him as fully and fiercely as any parents love their child—because he is ours, not by biology but by choice. We have watched him grow into a joyful, deeply empathetic and thoughtful child who embraces his unique identity. He proudly says he has “two homes” and many parents. Our family has expanded not just through him but through his foster family, who are now part of our extended family as well. And yes, we still get a laugh when unknowing strangers debate whether he looks more like me or my husband.
Adoption means paperwork and uncertainty and years of waiting—but also transformational love, expanded identity, and deep belonging. In a world where so much feels broken and divided, creating family across differences is a quiet but radical expression of hope. A declaration that every child is worthy of love, stability, and family—not just in theory, but in practice. And in a culture where the conversation often stops at “awareness,” adoption is the work of showing up.
Let this be an invitation to take one small step. Learn about the foster care system and the kids in your community who are waiting. Talk to someone who has adopted or was adopted. Read a story different from your own. And if you’re already considering fostering or adopting, go one step deeper. Talk to a social worker. Attend an information session. Fill out a form, sign up for a class, or make the call you’ve been putting off.
Adoption won’t solve all of the world’s problems—but it will change a child’s world. And it may just change yours.
Amy Chen is a senior business executive with two decades of leadership experience in the consumer, food, and tech industries and a grateful adoptive mother. She is a PD Soros Fellow and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.
