Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The battle of Ukraine involves the American homefront

The battle of Ukraine involves the American homefront

An activiist demonstrates solidarity with Ukraine at New York's Grand Central Station on March 23.

Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images

Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonprofit advocate for amending the Constitution to allow more federal and state regulation of money in politics.

Events of these challenging years have forced Americans to face uncomfortable truths about ourselves, our government and our place in the world. We are reminded that constitutional democracy is not the default human condition; it is fragile and rare in the world and in human history. The aspiration for freedom is universal, but government of tyrants or oligarchs is far more common than government of the people. Free people and democratic societies that won’t defend themselves from external or internal dangers don’t survive.


The 2022 Freedom House report, “ The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule,” describes 16 years of democratic decline. “[G]lobal freedom faces a dire threat. Around the world, the enemies of liberal democracy are accelerating their attacks.”

Vladimir Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainians’ heroic defense of their country, underlines that while we may not wish it, we now are in a dangerous global defense of freedom. Most Americans now accept this somber fact. According to Citizen Data, nearly 80 percent of Americans see the Ukrainian resistance as part of a global struggle for democracy, rather than as a regional conflict. Nearly the same number want the United States to do more.

These Americans are right. The battle of Ukraine is a front in the global resistance to enemies of democracy. The elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, refuses to surrender and makes compelling appeals to the democracies of the world, citing Winston Churchill in the British Parliament and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in Congress. Meanwhile, in Russia, the isolated autocrat justifies his extraordinary violence against a sovereign country and a free people by saying they have no right to exist. He calls for Russian “self-purification” against “traitors and scum” (i.e., Russians who disagree with him).

If we are to help lead a global fight for freedom, America must confront our shortcomings and division at home. This has always been so in our persistent progress toward the promise of liberty and self-government. Our anti-oligarch Constitution was forged in the first global struggle of freedom against tyranny. Two generations later, to block European intervention and win the Civil War, our battle for Union became a fight for freedom over slavery — and we had to prove it with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.

In the 20th century, when America intervened in World War I to defend democracy, we had to prove it at home with votes for women and anti-oligarch measures such as income tax reform and the first campaign finance laws. During the Cold War, America could not lead the free world without civil rights reform to end violent inequality and segregation.

As we respond to the undeniable threat to democratic societies in Europe and around the world today, what is the priority defense at home? We face not only the danger of insurrection, populism and authoritarian norm-breaking but a danger from what Nathan Gardels calls the “Perfect Plutocracy.”

According to Gardels, the collapse of public trust in institutions of self-government is the core crisis of democracy. The response to this crisis, he says, has gone in two directions: 1) populist-oriented authoritarian movements and leaders who promise to act for the people, and 2) increased efforts to expand tools of citizen engagement and participation.















But Gardels warns of a third response to the trust crisis, a “perfect plutocracy,” where authoritarian leaders or the elite interests use the tools of citizen engagement to reinforce their anti-democratic power.

Examples abound. Elections are the most obvious place where we should find citizen participation. But how can most Americans engage in meaningful participation when the parties, politicians and process are dominated by billions of dollars from a small donor class? Half of the $1 billion donated to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign came from just five cities, all on the coasts. Donald Trump’s big spenders were slightly more distributed, but also came mostly from five wealthy cities. The 20 billionaires who fund much of the Democratic and Republican candidates and super PACs are from the same cities.

The citizen ballot initiative has been co-opted by global corporations and billionaires who use it to drive preferred policies that cost most Americans money and hardship. What citizen or honest elected official can afford to offer a different view against a $200 million ballot campaign of the global and foreign-owned corporations like Uber? Who can work for lower drug prices when pharmaceutical companies will spend $100 million on initiatives that keep prices high?

Political parties once enabled increased citizen participation and debate about significant issues. Now the parties and primaries are dominated by a small slice of big donors and the most extreme party activists. With dueling donor factions in both parties, and partisan district line drawing making most elections uncompetitive, only 10 percent of eligible voters decided the primaries that elected 83 percent of Congress.

Many reforms are needed, and mega-wealthy donors such as Kathryn Murdoch, the Arnold family and Mike Novogratz say they can help. But wealthy donors may exacerbate the distrust that is at the root of populism and authoritarianism if they neglect how money is used in elections. To unite America and reinforce our resistance to oligarchy, reform will need to include lasting constitutional steps to correct unfair election spending rules that favor the wealthy and global corporations at the expense of most Americans.

In this global struggle for democracy, American servicemembers already are responding in Europe and beyond. Most of us, God willing, will not be called to arms. But all of us can help at home. As we seek to protect freedom from the attacks of oligarchs and tyrants, we dare not settle for a perfect plutocracy in America.


Read More

The Future of DEI in Higher Education: Unpacking Recent Federal Restrictions
A group of people standing in a circle with their hands together

The Future of DEI in Higher Education: Unpacking Recent Federal Restrictions

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs serve diverse student populations at colleges and universities across the nation. DEI programs in higher education have traditionally supported first-generation college students, students with disabilities, veterans, low-income students, and racial and ethnic minorities through offices, scholarships, cultural centers, and accessibility services.
  • Federal initiatives, such as TRIO or the Full-Service Community Schools program, are facing cuts to funding due to DEI-related federal policy, affecting students across the nation.

Defining DEI

From debates surrounding race-conscious admission policies to questions about the role and funding of identity-based student centers, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has become a widely debated topic in higher education policy. DEI refers to institutional policies and programs–such as mentorship opportunities, cultural centers, and support programs–which improve campus climate and student access for underrepresented groups. Though many colleges and universities across the United States have developed DEI initiatives aimed at shaping student access and institutional priorities, recent legal and policy developments have raised questions about how these efforts align with federal law.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rear view of teenage boy walking with arm around friends

Why many young men feel politically and socially adrift, how changing gender roles affect masculinity, self-esteem, relationships, and the future of society.

Maskot / Getty Images

Lost Boys - What Is the Role of a Man in Today's Society?

A recent New York Times article stated that young males who provided an important swing vote for Trump in 2024 are discouraged by what Trump has done and not done while in office. But they are nevertheless not particularly inclined to vote Democratic because they don't see the Party as welcoming their view of masculinity and they don't know where they fit in this society.

These young men assume that because the Party supports equality for women in the workplace and because many young women no longer have marriage and having children at the top of their agenda, the Party would not be a welcoming home for them. They see themselves as striving for the masculinity of their fathers' or grandfathers' day, where the man was the breadwinner in the family and had respect and authority. Not the weaker half in relationships with women.

Keep ReadingShow less
Showing Up and Staying: Disaster Relief in an Age of Distrust

NECHAMA volunteers in Western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene.

Showing Up and Staying: Disaster Relief in an Age of Distrust

As the Atlantic hurricane season officially began on June 1, disaster response organizations across the country are preparing for the next storm. That preparation includes coordinating logistics, purchasing supplies, training volunteers, and strengthening partnerships. It now also requires planning for an environment shaped by misinformation, distrust, and competing narratives.

A recent 60 Minutes segment examining extremist groups in disaster zones highlighted how quickly public perceptions can form after a disaster. Recovery efforts are now followed by outside groups and online networks attempting to influence how events are understood while communities are still in crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less