Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How business can help address the American schism without touching political “third rails”

A conversation with author Seth Radwell

How business can help address the American schism without touching political “third rails”
Getty Images

Elizabeth Doty has served as the Director of the Erb Institute’s Corporate Political Responsibility Task Force since its launch in 2021. For 30 years, she has helped leading companies implement their business strategies, improve employee engagement and retain customers by aligning across functions and delivering on their commitments. Her book, “The Compromise Trap,” was published in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis. Based on that work, she was recognized as a Top Thought Leader in Trust, and has designed and led executive-level programs for Fortune 500 companies, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Presidio Graduate School and the U.S. Department of Defense.

In a recent Expert Dialogue presented by the Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce at the Erb Institute, award-winning author and former CEO Seth Radwell explored the dilemmas and opportunities that business leaders face amid increasing political polarization and incivility in public discourse. Radwell is author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing Our Nation,” winner of the 2022 International Book Award.


Building on his experience as a business executive — as CEO of The Proactiv Company and president of e-Scholastic — Radwell now devotes his time to exploring business’ role in democracy reform and depolarization.

During the dialogue, I asked Seth why he left business to research the causes of American polarization. He said the need for business leaders to step up came into sharp focus over the last decade as he watched the country’s democratic infrastructure weaken and civic debate collapse. “We’re actually moving more and more into an amygdala-driven dialogue about fear and emotions as opposed to facts and problem-solving,” Radwell said.

Yet in the face of this crisis, he watched as most of his peers opted to keep their heads down and avoid getting involved. “They’re afraid of backlash, and concerned that they cannot make a difference,” he said. “I understand this, but I believe business leaders have a unique opportunity to help heal the schism dividing our nation by working to support strong democratic institutions and civic discourse — all in ways that go beyond the polemical issues fueling the current rancor.”

Through the rest of the dialogue, Radwell expounded on why business leaders should be concerned about the health of U.S. democracy and how they can play a pragmatic, constructive role in promoting democratic principles and civic discourse. He gave examples of pro-democratic, nonpartisan issues business leaders can engage with and shared advice for those looking for other ways to take action on issues.

Why should business leaders be concerned about the health of the U.S. democracy?

Radwell said he’s seen civic debate collapsing over the last decade as rational problem-solving, data, and reason have been crowded out by emotionally driven content. The issue will not fix itself due to what he calls the double-incentive problem: both the political system and most media encourage emotionally driven content. Specifically, he argued that politicians know that provoking fear and anger motivates voters to turn out, while the media is also incentivized to stir emotion to promote viewership and engagement.

The result is that though the extreme voices are in the minority, they continue to get more play. He said to fix the problem, the “exhausted, frustrated” majority — or the 70% of people who dislike the country’s political polarization and the state of public discourse — must step up.

Could history provide a model for solutions to today’s polarized environment?

In his book, Radwell looked to five historical periods marked by great division, going back to the Enlightenment and the founding of constitutional democracy in the U.S. He was excited to discover that the U.S. has a successful formula.

Historically, the U.S. has navigated these divisions by letting facts and data lead the conversation and working together constructively to engage multiple perspectives and work toward consensus and compromise.

“History can act as a salve for our wounds if only we’d apply it,” he said. “Over the course of our history, we found what I call a secret sauce, a formula that we’ve used to forge solutions despite being in the face of great division. That’s the reason why I said before the stakes are so high, because where we are today, the trajectory we’re on is moving not with that solution space, that secret sauce, we’re moving away from it.”

He went on to explain that though long-debated questions such as political representation and influence continue to manifest in new forms today, the country increasingly has leaned toward rancor and acrimony while crowding out objective truth and reason.

“It’s about changing a lot of how we talk to each other, how we relate as Americans. And here’s where I think the digital environment has been somewhat destructive in allowing a level of anonymity to fester in the public discourse. We are moving away and not towards the solution, and that’s why it’s so serious.”

To restore the health of U.S. democracy, Radwell calls on the “exhausted majority” to re-engage using that formula.

“The first step,” Radwell explains, “is for the exhausted majority to realize that they are, in fact, the majority.” This realization can help them get over the fear that may hold them back from engaging in today’s bitter debates. “This is about fundamentally rejecting the paradigm of debate today — the demonization, the ad hominem attacks,” he said. “It’s about forcing the debate to consider data and facts and reason. And I think we, as business people, have a huge role to play here.”

How can companies play a pragmatic, constructive role?

Radwell suggests that private sector business leaders are uniquely positioned to help, because so many of them use the U.S. “success formula” — relying on data and debate, and bringing in many perspectives — as a matter of course.

Though some business leaders fear that in today’s environment, speaking out about issues will bring on the wrath of certain groups or get them “canceled.” Still, Radwell said there are productive, nonpartisan avenues to engage on key issues that don’t throw businesses into the middle of controversial debates. “What I try to show business people is, in fact, they can get involved in a completely nonpartisan way that has nothing to do with the hot-button issues of today. By engaging in the process of democracy systems, business leaders can make a huge contribution without touching radioactive issues.”

It starts with business leaders getting engaged locally, seeing what issues people in their communities care about, and plugging into existing efforts that make the democratic system more trustworthy and fair — led by citizens. Radwell gave four examples of such pro-democratic reforms: redistricting, open primaries, ranked-choice voting, and money in politics.

Speaking to the issue of open primaries as an example, Radwell said because of safe red or blue districts and closed primaries, 8% of the electorate is responsible for electing 84% of the U.S. Congress. He said there are already groups working on these and other structural reforms so businesses have no need to reinvent the wheel. “And that’s what I encourage business to do: to plug into this structure that’s out there,” he said.

Specific pro-democratic groups noted by Radwell included Business for America, Unite America, American Promise, and RepresentUs. He said the political depolarization group Braver Angels deals directly with mindset rather than structural changes. Business leaders can also help support economic fairness by providing job training or educational programs.

“You don’t have to give up your career to do this,” Radwell said. “You can focus on continuing to run your business, but doing these one or two or three additional things to support what I call the pro-democracy movement.”

The view, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this writing do not represent an endorsement or advocating by the ERB Institute of the work or organizations cited in this writing.


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

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, 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 No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less