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

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

Donkey and elephant

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

#1. Deep Dive: Is it Realistic to Make Parties Great Again?

There’s intriguing new energy for advancing party-based forms of proportional representation (PR) in the United States, along with substantial legal efforts to win fusion voting where candidates earn the right to be nominated by more than one party. The underlying theory of the case for this new energy is that American political parties should be both strengthened and allowed to multiply. But is that what either the voters or elected leaders want? Here’s a longer “Deep Think” than usual to explore that question.

First, here’s new evidence of this energy and the intellectual case around stronger parties behind it:

Keep ReadingShow less
A person at a voting booth.

Independent voters now make up the largest voting bloc in the U.S., yet many are excluded from primaries and debates. Why reforming primary elections requires empowering independents.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Empowering Independent Voters Can Fix Primary Elections

Not long ago, almost no one talked about the rules and culture of primary elections. Today, there is a growing recognition that the way we run primary elections isn’t working. They’re too partisan. Too low turnout. Too dominated by ideological activists. My organization, Open Primaries, has spent years pushing this conversation into the mainstream.

But we won’t fix primaries purely by tweaking rules. Their dysfunction is a symptom of a larger problem: the systemic exclusion of independent voters from our political life. To truly reform them, we have to start with an honest discussion about why so many Americans are leaving the parties- and what it would take to empower them as full participants in our democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Liberty and Justice for Some

Stephanie Toliver examines book bans, transgender rights in Kansas, the impacts of ICE detentions, and the history of conditional equality in America’s schools, libraries, and churches.

Getty Images, Catherine McQueen

Liberty and Justice for Some

Late February brought two stories that most Americans filed under separate categories. In Kansas, the state government invalidated the driver's licenses and birth certificates of transgender residents, erasing legal identities with the stroke of a pen. In New York, a Columbia University neuroscience student named Ellie Aghayeva was taken from her campus apartment by federal agents who misrepresented themselves to get through the door and held by ICE until the city's mayor personally petitioned for her release. Different people, different states, different mechanisms. The same message: for some of us, the promises of this nation were always conditional.

And yet, many Americans hold onto the lie of equality because acknowledging the truth would mean that the foundational promise we have repeated since childhood — liberty and justice for all — was never meant for all of us. It is far easier to accept comfortable fictions than to reckon with a truth that destabilizes everything you thought you knew. That meritocracy is real. That all are equal. That the documents we carry and the institutions we enter will protect us the same way they protect everyone else. But for many of us, there was never a fiction to hold onto. We were born into the conditions the lie was designed to obscure.

Keep ReadingShow less
Michael B. Jordan standing next to Delroy Lindo

Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the 41st Annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

Getty Images, Phillip Faraone

Not OK: Curb Slurs and Hate Speech To Avoid The Monstrous

John Davidson shouted out the n-word while Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo presented a prize recently at the British Academy Film Awards.

Was it hate speech or a mistake made due to a disability?

Keep ReadingShow less