Tag: Pillars

Unions Join Unlikely Allies to Defend American Elections 

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: November 2020
Location: United States
Main Actors: AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFT, UNITE HERE, union members
Tactics
- Signed public statement
- Declarations by organizations or institutions
- Demonstrations 
- Assemblies of support

On Election Day 2020 The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the United States, teamed up with the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the National African American Clergy Network to call for the respect of election results and the peaceful transfer of power. Addressing then-President Trump’s unfounded criticisms of the electoral system, and Trump’s initial repudiation of Biden’s victory, the AFL-CIO and its partners released a statement noting the importance of giving election officials space and time to count the votes, asked that the American public (including political candidates) practice patience, and condemned electoral violence or intimidation.

This public declaration followed a year of behind-the-scenes effort. Mike Podhorzer, senior advisor to the president of the AFL-CIO, was one of the major forces behind this work. Podhorzer began working with many other democracy advocates (including Protect Democracy and the Voter Protection Program) in the fall of 2019. Democracy advocates feared an attack on the US electoral system and recognized the need to prepare for that potential outcome. Accordingly, they began meeting with a variety of actors from business, civil society, and political spheres. These meetings created an infrastructure to protect American democracy, with initiatives to recruit poll workers, encourage social media companies to remove harmful conspiracies and misinformation, and help overcome voting challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. As election day loomed and President Trump continued to spread falsehoods about the election, Podhorzer and others drew upon their contacts to arrange a meeting between AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, resulting in the aforementioned statement coming from a united front of labor and business.

A key strength of this statement was its collaborative character. Working with business, faith, and leaders in the Black community ensured the statement was less vulnerable to accusations of bias. This coalition also brought together leaders from across key pillars of society in solidarity.

In addition to organizing the joint statement, unions played a broader role in defending the 2020 election. In the days surrounding Election Day, a labor coalition of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), UNITE HERE (a labor union representing around 300,000 US and Canadian workers in a variety of sectors) and others organized “Count Every Vote” demonstrations. These demonstrations made clear the readiness of union leaders to organize en masse against election subversion and coincided with demonstrations from other civil society actors.

Simultaneously, union members showed up to polling places in hotly contested Michigan and Arizona to protect threatened election officials. When far-right extremists tried to intimidate the Michigan State Board of Canvassers from certifying the 2020 election, labor pressured Republican members to hold to the process and accept the results. 

These efforts demonstrate how labor can play an important role in organizing and waging a pro-democracy campaign. A declaration of support with key pillars of society brought in important actors and created a united front against election interference rhetoric. The importance of coalition building cannot be overstated; for example, aligning with the Chamber of Commerce helped to pressure pro-business Republicans. Refusing to be sidelined, unions marched with democracy activists and protected election officials from anti-democracy extremists. These actions showcased the importance of “putting boots on the ground” and going beyond rhetoric in times of crisis. When autocratic forces arrived in person to intimidate election officials, union members were there to protect the process and ensure the physical well-being of some of the most important actors in the American electoral system.

Where to Learn More
- Hard Truths and Good Signs for Labor’s Role in Defending Democracy
- Here's What Labor Unions Say They're Doing to Protect the Vote
- The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
- AFL-CIO, Chamber of Commerce, National Faith Leaders Call for Votes to Be Counted

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

Small Businesses Fuel the Fight for Freedom in Ukraine 

*By Claire Trilling
Time Period: 1999 - 2005
Location: Ukraine
Main Actors: Small- and medium-sized Ukrainian businesses; Anatoliy Kinakh and the League of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs
Tactics
- Material support
- Institutional action 
- Generalized strikes 

In 1999, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma won a second term in an election marred by irregularities, kicking off a period of declining democracy characterized by high levels of corruption and violent attacks on dissidents. Two major campaigns against Kuchma took place during this period. The first was the “Ukraine Without Kuchma” movement in 2000, which involved mass protests in the capital, Kyiv, against corruption and illegal activities by President Kuchma and the big business oligarchs who supported him. Although the government effectively repressed the campaign, civil society groups, such as the student-led organization Pora, responded to their failure by undertaking careful planning, training, and network-building over the following years.

Following “Ukraine Without Kuchma,” however, the government and its supporters further eroded Ukrainian democracy. In the 2004 presidential election, the ruling party put forward Viktor Yanukovych as their candidate and began a shadow campaign of manipulation and sabotage of the opposition to ensure his victory. When, despite widespread evidence of fraud, Ukraine’s Central Election Commission announced that Yanukovych had defeated opposition candidate Viktor Yuschenko, civil society groups and the opposition political party coalition, Our Ukraine, were prepared to respond. The coalition mobilized their networks to begin the “Orange Revolution,” named after Our Ukraine’s colors. At the heart of the campaign was the nonviolent occupation of Independence Square in Kyiv, which drew millions of participants, many of whom symbolically wore orange. Much of the city mobilized to support the protest camp, while citizens outside Kyiv organized local demonstrations, marches, and strikes. 

Ukraine’s business community played a critical role throughout the campaign, helping to lead to its eventual success. Small and medium-sized businesses provided much of the funding and the food and clothing that kept protesters in Independence Square fed and warm, sustaining the protest through the freezing temperatures of the Ukrainian winter. This support did not come about spontaneously. It was the result of a long, careful process of pre-campaign relationship-building. As part of their preparations, Pora had built specific sections for fundraising and financial management into their organizational structure to facilitate the flow of donations from domestic partners. Small- and medium-sized business owners, often called the “new Ukrainians” due to their political and economic orientation toward the West, were a major source of those donations. These business owners largely supported Yushchenko due to his campaign promises to end high taxes, corruption, and politically motivated investigations into businesses. Their material support allowed Pora activists to begin the Orange Revolution armed with the knowledge they had sufficient resources to sustain a mass occupation of Independence Square in the winter’s freezing temperatures. Outside of Kyiv, small- and medium-sized businesses participated in local strikes. 

Larger business organizations also provided critical support for the Orange Revolution. The League of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (ULIE), which represented the country’s large businesses, initially helped bring Kuchma to power. Over his presidency, however, Kuchma’s inner circle of oligarchs shrunk, alienating many of the country’s business elites and spurring their fears of dictatorship. While few of the alienated business elites publicly opposed Kuchma during his first two terms, the 2004 presidential elections and Orange Revolution provided an opportunity to publicly defect. Anatoliy Kinakh, the head of ULIE, was a candidate in the first round of the elections and then threw his weight behind Yuschenko in the run-offs following negotiations with the opposition. ULIE openly supported the Orange Revolution, providing funding to support the mass demonstrations, with Kinakh even attending demonstrations. 

On December 3rd, in the face of persistent mass mobilization and a series of defections by former regime supporters, Ukraine’s Supreme Court acknowledged the government’s electoral fraud and ordered new elections for December 26. Parliament revised electoral law to limit the potential for fraud and put forward constitutional reforms that would limit the powers of the president thereafter. Yushchenko won the new elections, and the country’s elite-driven backsliding trend quickly reversed. 

The example of Ukraine’s business community provides several important lessons on the role of business in struggles against democratic backsliding. Larger business groups (like ULIE in Ukraine) can play an important role through the use of their high public profile and voice. Smaller businesses may have a quieter but no less critical role to play. High profile movements on the streets are sustained through the reliable infusion of resources to keep them there. While many American businesses have provided such quiet support for local pro-democracy movements such support is often ad hoc and does not always flow to the most impactful frontline organizations. Businesses and activist groups should work to build relationships ahead of time (like Pora and the “new Ukrainians”) such that, when a major mobilization comes, the streams of funding are already in place to support it.

Where to Learn More
- Aslund, Anders. 2009. “The Orange Revolution, 2004.” Chapter in How Ukraine Became a Market Economy and Democracy. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics. 175-199.
- Kuzio, Taras. 2005b. “From Kuchma to Yushchenko: Ukraine’s 2004 Presidential Elections and the Orange Revolution.” Problems of Post-Communism, 52(2): 29-44.
- Kuzio, Taras. 2005a. “Pora! Takes Two Different Paths.” Eurasia Daily Monitor, 2(23).
- Polese, Abel. 2009. “Ukraine 2004: Informal Networks, Transformation of Social Capital and Coloured Revolutions.” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 25(2): 255-277.
- van Zon, Hans. 2008. “Why the Orange Revolution succeeded.” Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 6(3): 373-402.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

German Businesses Defend Democracy and Fight Extremism

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 2017-Present
Location: Germany
Main Actors: WVIB, VDMA, Welcome Saxony, Business Leaders
Tactics
- Civic Engagement
- Media Outreach
- Signed Letters of Support
- Social Media Campaign

Given their country’s history of Nazism, business leaders in Germany are particularly sensitive to the importance of speaking out against anti-democratic forces. For the past decade, the most prominent of these forces has been the Alternative for Deutschland’s (AFD) party, which has demonized immigrants, Muslims, and other minority groups as part of its nationalist ideology. Thus, German business leaders have engaged in several campaigns to strengthen democracy and combat AFD and its allies.

Unity, Justice, Liberty 

The Business Association of Industrial Enterprises Baden (WVIB) is a business association of medium sized industrial businesses in the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg. Noticing the rise of autocracy in the United States, neighboring European countries, and domestically in Germany, leadership in WVIB made it a priority to support democracy. In 2016, then WVIB President Klaus Endress addressed member companies in their annual meeting, demanding action to support the association’s core values of enlightenment, humanism, tolerance, and democracy. 

As a result of this call, WVIB embarked on the “Unity, Justice, and Liberty” campaign, an attempt to dissuade association employees and members of the public from voting for the AFD in the 2017 legislative election.

The Unity, Justice, and Liberty campaign consisted of a grassroots effort from member companies. Each week, a different member advertised in a local newspaper, demonstrating to the public the business community’s commitment to democracy. They also created campaign posters, fliers, and social media posts. On the campaign website, over 1,100 people signed a pledge to “build bridges not walls.” Further support was driven by civil society actors, such as professors, politicians, and professional sports figures.

#Europe Works: 

The Mechanical Engineering Industry Association (VDMA) is a machine-tool association composed of 3600 German and European companies. VDMA companies employ over one million Germans. Responding to far-right xenophobia in 2017, VDMA launched the “Europeworks” campaign. Coinciding with the sixtieth anniversary of the Rome Treaty (the founding treaty of the European Union), the Europeworks campaign was dedicated to highlighting the importance of European integration and the role of immigration in building a strong German economy. Europeworks launched a social media campaign with a dedicated marketing budget and website. The second phase of Europeworks, “Moving Europe Forward,” replicated some of the same strategies employed by the WVIB’s “Unity, Justice, and Liberty” campaign. VDMA encouraged business leaders and member companies to distribute a pro-democracy message to the public and their employees. The goal was to discourage voting of the extreme right parties during upcoming elections. The campaign was a success on social media, helping to hinder far-right parties criticized as the “new nationalists.”

Welcome Saxony 

Recognizing the German state of Saxony as a hotbed for nationalist, anti-democratic politics, the Saxony business community launched Welcome Saxony as a campaign to oppose the autocratic right. The association provides members with educational employee training on several relevant topics, such as multiculturalism in the workplace, Neo-Nazism and the new right in Saxony, and fake news, conspiracy theories, and democracy. Welcome Saxony is also active in electoral politics, with a section of the website, Election 2024, dedicated to upcoming elections. Here, Welcome Saxony has embedded video statements of support from a variety of actors, such as the Chairman of the Saxony Silicon business association, a manager of public relations in Dresden, and the frontman of a famous Saxony band. These actors demonstrate solidarity across industry and a dedication to upholding democratic principles. The statements of support encourage votes for parties that support democracy, eschewing encouragement of any particular party. Some individuals reflect on Germany's history, underscoring the imperative of safeguarding democracy and standing up to authoritarians.

Business opposition to AFD 

The AFD party won its first mayoral election in December of 2023, a harbinger of its increased popularity. The burgeoning support of AFD sparked nationwide demonstrations and prompted action from businesses as well. Unwilling to stay silent, several leading business figures led pro-democracy initiatives. Top industry figures, such as the chief executive of the association of German Banks, the leadership of the Federation of German industries, and the leadership of the association of German employers have all spoken out against rising authoritarianism. These leaders repeatedly call for support of democracy, and condemn xenophobia and hate associated with the far-right. One prominent businessman and former politician, Harald Christ, has stressed the need to organize against the AFD. Christ has stated “something must be done” and that “I don’t intend to sit passively at my desk and leave the field to the populists.” Christ has started an initiative to bring together CEOs and board members to address political extremist factions.

The German business community’s actions provide a few key takeaways for US audiences. Most importantly is the role business can take in combating far-right extremism. Instead of passively allowing autocrats to take power, business figures took an active oppositional approach. Through business associations, business leaders conducted coordinated campaigns of engagement with the public. Associations provide numbers, organization, and reduce the risk of singling out any one business, which allowed WVIB, VDMA, and Welcome Saxony to mount successful public outreach campaigns. In all cases, the business associations’ willingness to work with community figures like musicians, athletes, and artists furnished their movement with legitimacy outside the business community. 

Where to Learn More
- See especially Dr. Daniel Kinderman's work.
- Einigkeit. Recht. Freiheit
- Europe works
- Welcome Saxony
- German Business Mobilization Against Right-Wing Populism

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

Venezuelan Businesses Fight a Rising Dictator 

*By Claire Trilling
Time Period: November 2001 - April 2002
Location: Venezuela, Caracas
Main Actors: Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Production/Federación de Cámaras y Asociaciones de Comercio y Producción de Venezuela (Fedecámaras)
Tactics
- Economic shutdowns 
- General strikes 
- Cacerolazo 
- Marches 

Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela in December 1998 after running a populist campaign that appealed to Venezuelans’ frustration with economic inequality and political stagnation. In 1999, voters approved a new constitution via popular referendum and then re-elected Chávez as president the following year. From 1999-2000, Venezuela experienced a sharp drop in its level of democracy, as Chávez systematically undermined the country’s system of checks and balances. He dismantled judiciary independence and legislative power, while politicizing the military and police and increasingly clashing with organized labor, business groups, the Catholic Church, and the media. Chávez came into office with a history of anti-democratic behavior, having led and been imprisoned for a failed coup attempt in 1992. Between his steps to consolidate power and his growing ties to Cuba, many citizens began to fear that he was modeling his government after a Fidel Castro-style Communist dictatorship. 

An opposition movement, composed of business, labor, and church groups together with a mix of left- and right-wing political parties, began to emerge in the summer of 2001. Later that year, on November 13, Chávez enacted 49 new laws without approval from Venezuela’s legislature, the National Assembly. Many viewed the laws’ overhaul of the oil industry and land expropriation processes, among other changes, as a move by Chávez to consolidate power. Entrepreneurs and business groups immediately denounced such drastic changes being undertaken without consultation with or input from affected interest groups. They called on the government to suspend ten laws that faced the strongest opposition, but Chávez refused to either suspend the laws or meet with the opposition. 

In response to Chávez’s intransigence, the business community activated the fledgling opposition movement. On December 10, the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Production (Fedecámaras), the country’s main business union, called for a day-long national strike in collaboration with the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), the country’s largest labor coalition. They demanded that Chávez renegotiate the fast-tracked laws via a dialogue with the business community and other affected interest groups.

The 6am-6pm “paro”, or stoppage, drew widespread support from across the private sector. Millions of people participated across a range of industries, from shopping centers and small businesses to factories and newspapers to banks and the stock exchange. Private schools closed, professional baseball refused to play, and even some hospitals offered emergency services only. In a show of support, housewives organized a cacerolazo, a form of protest in which people make noise by banging pots and pans. The strike paralyzed the country, shutting down 90% of its economy for the day.

The action had a mixed outcome. Chávez refused to reform the laws or hold a dialogue with the business community, although he fired a key ally accused of corruption in a reconciliatory move. The main success of the Dec. 10th strike came from the momentum and strength it built for the opposition movement by exposing the widespread opposition to Chávez’s policies. The Fedecámaras and CTV organized another successful strike in early January 2002 that once again shut down the country’s economy. Between the two, they organized regular marches that drew hundreds of thousands of participants. By the end of the second strike, Chávez’s approval ratings had dropped to 30%. 

In late March, Chávez attempted to offset the movement’s growing power by taking steps to increase his control over the state-owned oil company responsible for much of the country’s export revenue. The Fedecámaras and CTV responded by organizing another general strike for April 9th, this time targeting the oil industry. The action involved a near-total shutdown of the state-owned oil company and was extended first for another day. After Chávez refused to respond, the Fedecámaras and CTV voted to extend the strike indefinitely until a coordinating committee focused on reinstituting democratic procedures was formed. On April 11, they organized a mass march against Chávez in Caracas. However, the march resulted in violent clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators outside the presidential palace. When Chávez ordered the military to repress the protesters, top officials refused and instead arrested Chávez, alongside other members of his administration.

The head of the Fedecámaras, Pedron Carmona, stepped in as interim president. However, he unilaterally abrogated the 1999 constitution and dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court, moves that were seen as highly undemocratic, even by some who opposed Chávez. Carmona was ultimately forced to resign on April 13 in the face of a mass counter-mobilization by Chávez’s supporters, with the result being Chávez’s re-installment and heightened levels of polarization in the country.

In disregarding democratic norms and processes, the coup attempt and following unilateral institutional changes backfired, costing the movement significant legitimacy, and accelerating the backsliding process. As such, this case not only offers insight on the powerful tactics available to the business sector; it also provides a warning about the dangers of using undemocratic tactics to address democratic backsliding. 

Where to Learn More
- Forero, Juan. “Daylong Venezuelan Strike Protests Economic Program.” New York Times, Dec. 11, 2001. 
- Global Nonviolent Action Database. “Venezuelans defend against coup attempt, 2002.” Swarthmore College, 2012.
- Nelson, Brian. 2009. The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela. New York: Nation Books.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

A Missouri Chamber of Commerce Speaks up For Their Community

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 2020
Location: United States, Missouri
Main Actors: Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce
Tactics
- Establishing new social patterns 

In 2020, after the murder of George Floyd and subsequent Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations, members of the Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce (JACC) in Missouri did not want to stay silent. In particular, Black business owners who were members of the Chamber wanted to know they were supported and represented during such an important moment. In a critical and candid op-ed, Chamber head Tobias Teeter condemned systemic racism, indicated support for the BLM movement, and pledged to address inequities in the Chamber of Commerce and its member businesses. Teeter wrote of an intention to change hiring practices and ensure Black owned businesses and business professionals within the chamber and throughout the community were adequately supported.

This action was costly. Following the op-ed, an oppositional movement began calls to boycott the Chamber of Commerce. Teeter himself received multiple threats, and before his scheduled speech in front of city council, an unknown individual(s) threw a large rock through the JACC’s glass front door. The rock was then lodged into the drywall for effect. Internally, some within the chamber were upset with taking such a strong stand. The board of directors offered tepid support and over 40 white-owned businesses canceled their JACC membership.

The Chamber refused to back down and the local community, seeing JACC’s strong commitment to racial justice, soon rallied behind them. Many supporters showed up to the JACC sponsored Unity Walk, a demonstration in support for racial equality. A local activist joined with the chamber of commerce, recognizing ways for the community to help amidst criticism and backlash. This activist worked alongside a local non-profit, raising money to pay for chamber of commerce membership dues of Black businesses. This effort sharply increased the representation of Black owned businesses within the JACC. Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) projects were also instituted and are ongoing.

While its critics hoped to dissolve the Chamber, the JACC’s actions strengthened their organization and built valuable ties with the local community. Infused with new members and forming new connections with the broader community, the JACC demonstrates how taking a stand for all Americans’ rights can benefit both business and local organizers.

Organizers and businesses can learn much from the Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce. Primarily, the Chamber demonstrated how taking a stand and forming connections with the local community can strengthen the position of business and create mutually beneficial relationships. The local community's willingness to help expand the Chamber was predicated on the JACC taking the initiative to speak out in support of racial justice. The initial backlash the Chamber received was mitigated by an outpouring of support from community members. For activists and organizers, a key lesson is in how business can bolster a democratic movement. By engaging with business, activists make connections that unify communities, reduce backlash, and achieve movement objectives. Due to local organizers’ willingness to engage with business, some goals of the racial justice movement were realized.

Where to Learn More 
- See especially Dr. Daniel Kinderman's work, The US chamber and chambers of commerce respond to Black Lives Matter: Cheap talk, progressive neoliberalism, or transformative change? 
- Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce issues letter addressing racism, equality in the community 
- Toby Teeter: An open letter to our community

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

Check My Ads Illuminates Authoritarian Advertising 

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 2021-Present
Location: United States, Online Campaign
Main Actors: Check My Ads Institute
Tactics Used
- Online Boycotts
- Social Media Campaigns
- Newsletters

In 2021, Nandini Jammi and Claire Atkin, two professionals with backgrounds in marketing and advertising, recognized a critical unaddressed problem in the online advertising world: due to the opaque and complicated nature of algorithm-driven advertising technology (adtech), many advertisers were unwittingly funding groups tied to misinformation and hate. Major brands were discovering their ads on websites such as Breitbart, despite explicitly not wanting to advertise in such spaces. Furthermore, a number of ads were on websites linked to autocratic campaigns worldwide, including those associated with the Russian state.

To address this problem, Jammi and Atkin founded the Check My Ads Institute (originally the “Check My Ads Agency”) as a consultancy to help businesses ensure their ads were placed with reputable sites. Yet the Check My Ads Agency quickly discovered a systematic problem in the advertising technology industry. Despite advertisers' best efforts, there is no straightforward way to ensure that advertisements do not appear on controversial platforms. Intermediaries (in many cases, the marketing agency/ad house hired to run the advertising campaign) can anonymize the names and seller account ids of where ad dollars end up, meaning a company could be funding known hate groups, without any way for them to audit that transaction. Businesses pay ad houses with the expectation that their brand will be protected from such outcomes, and yet, these ad houses cannot guarantee this expectation. Businesses cannot wholly know where their own marketing funds are ending up. There is a severe lack of transparency in the field.

Considering this finding, Check My Ads refocused their efforts toward transforming the adtech industry through a multipronged approach. Through their newsletter Branded, Check My Ads researches and reports on a wide variety of issue areas. Their work is prolific; Branded covers everything from the strategies bad actors employ to manipulate ad house blacklists, the role of Google in facilitating the funding of far-right or Russian-backed outlets, to details about the disinformation economy. Branded educates the public and pressures intermediaries who inadvertently finance some of the most harmful actors on the internet.

Simultaneously, Check My Ads worked on social media, demanding action and bringing awareness to prominent issues in the adtech space. Through their newsletter and influential social media presence, Check My Ads was able to defund and/or deplatform some of the biggest names in conspiracy theories and authoritarianism in the United States including Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino and Steve Bannon for their lies about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, support for the January 6th insurrectionists, and hateful rhetoric targeted at minority groups. Check My Ads also used social media to publicly call out advertising hosts, such as X (formerly Twitter). Under the leadership of new owner Elon Musk, X loosened standards on advertisements, resulting in opaque processes and failures in promises to keep advertisers away from hateful content.

Check My Ads Institute is a powerful example of the link between activism and the business community. While helping businesses protect their brands, they work to stop funding hate online. Businesses deserve to know who they are funding and should have the ability to audit and freeze their ad placements. Without this transparency, businesses face significant risk, and cannot make the ethical choices many business leaders would like to make.

Where to Learn More
- Check My Ads 
- Check My Ads (@CheckMyAdsHQ) 
- Nandini Jammi (@nandoodles) 
- Claire Atkin (@catthekin)

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

Wisconsin Business Leaders Ensure Fair Elections

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 2021-present
Location: United States, Wisconsin
Main Actors: Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy
Tactics
- Civic Engagement
- Media Outreach 
- Petitions
- Questionnaires 
- Signed Letters of Support
- Amicus Brief

In 2020, a bipartisan group of Wisconsin business leaders, concerned over unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election, formed an association to protect voting rights and democratic institutions: the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy. This association emerged out of a collection of business leaders who noted the relentless attacks on Wisconsin’s electoral system and wanted to take action. These leaders connected to others in their circles, invited them to online meetings, and discussed the best plan forward. Their conversations led them to establish an association. The association initially focused on encouraging civic engagement in the business sector, through avenues such as voter education initiatives, registration drives, and advocacy for companies to provide paid time off for employees to vote and/or work as an election official. They also created a civic toolkit to aid other business leaders seeking to improve civic engagement.

The Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy also took an active role in bolstering democracy and resisting attacks on voting infrastructure. The association sent letters of support to Wisconsin election officials, including the embattled Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe, members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, and over 1800 municipal clerks. In doing so, Wisconsin Business leaders legitimized the electoral system and dismissed partisan attacks based on false claims of voter fraud.

During the 2022 Wisconsin general election, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy publicly requested gubernatorial candidates Tim Michels and Tony Evers sign a pledge to abide by ten basic democratic principles. These principles included a promise to respect the outcome of the 2022 elections, encourage a peaceful election atmosphere, refrain from propagating known falsehoods about the electoral process, veto any attempts to decertify the 2020 presidential election results, and to certify the results of the 2024 presidential election once verified by the Wisconsin Election Commission.

When candidate Tim Michels did not respond to the pledge, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy took action. Feeling it necessary to inform the public and having given both candidates ample opportunity to respond, they aired an advertisement noting Michels’ non-response to the pledge. The ad condemned Michel’s non-response and supported Evers as the “pro-democracy” candidate.

Following the 2022 general election, Wisconsin held a special election in April 2023 to fill a vacant seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Similar to the 2022 general election, the Supreme Court race was highly polarized and embroiled in falsehoods around electoral integrity. Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy once again sent a questionnaire to the two major candidates, Janet Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly. The questionnaire asked for their perspective on matters of democracy, especially pertaining to cases likely to involve the court. Judge Janet Protasiewicz’s responses were published in full on Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy’s website, but former Justice Daniel Kelly did not respond after repeated inquiries. Daniel Kelly only addressed the questionnaire after a critical op-ed from the business coalition, but ultimately refused to answer any part of the questionnaire. Individuals from Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy once again ran advertisements, noting Kelly’s role in working to undermine the 2020 election results.

Most recently, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy submitted an amicus brief to a Dane county court defending Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe and asking the judge to rule against partisan attempts to remove her from office.

By taking on this public role, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy signaled the business communities’ demands for a free and fair election that respected the choices of the people of Wisconsin. With their help, the Wisconsin elections of 2022 and the Supreme Court 2023 election proceeded with little issue. The Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy exemplify the case for business involvement in democracy. Assembling a non-partisan coalition, the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy were able to ensure fair, non-violent democratic elections in 2022 and 2023.

Where to Learn More
- Wisconsin Business Leaders For Democracy 
- Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Dan Kelly's failure to complete survey on democracy deeply troubling 
- Wisconsin Business Leaders & Democracy

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

Comparative Caselets: The Civil Service as a Pillar of Support

*By Becca Leviss
Time Period: 1920-2023
Location: USA, Canada, Germany, Guinea-Bissau, Fiji
Main Actors: Current and former Department of Justice employees; American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU); Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) employees and unions; Fédération autonome de l'enseignement (FAE); Front commun ("the common front," a coalition of Canadian unions representing workers across the public sector, including health care and education); German trade unions; National Union of Workers in Guinea-Bissau (UNTG); The General Confederation of Independent Unions; Public Service Association; Public Employees Union; Fiji Nursing Association
Tactics
- Civil Servant Strike
- Boycotts of government departments, agencies, and other bodies
- Marches
- Group or Mass Petition
- General and limited strikes
- Slowdown strike
- Popular nonobedience
- Stalling and obstruction

Research highlights that successful social movements do not just mobilize large numbers, but specifically bring in people from the organizations and institutions that maintained the power of the status quo, often referred to as the pillars of support. Effective organizing requires understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these pillars, how to mobilize people in the pillars to withdraw their support from those in power, and what levers people in the pillars can pull to put pressure on existing authority.

One key pillar of support to consider in any movement targeting the government is the civil service: career government employees hired rather than appointed or elected, and often serving in their roles across various political administrations. Who is in the civil service varies across countries – some countries count medical professionals and teachers among their civil service, for example – and the roles and responsibilities of civil servants similarly vary. Yet what is shared across countries is that every government requires workers to carry out the government’s functions. And modern governments with an expansive set of complex responsibilities require a particularly complex, educated, specialized workforce. 

In the struggle to protect and expand democracy, civil servants have two key characteristics that make them particularly powerful. First, and most obviously, they are the actual implementers of government policy. Any authoritarian policies or practices will require the cooperation of a critical mass of the civil service. Second, civil servants in the United States take a sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution, committing the heart of their work to protecting our democratic political system over and above the agendas of any particular political leader. The civil service is both critically important to the day-to-day functioning of our political system and uniquely committed to its integrity.

The Civil Service in a United States Context 

The current US civil service system was established in the late 1800s to replace and rectify a structure in which personal and political loyalty determined professional placement in the federal government. Since then, the US civil service has functioned as a bulwark of effective, democratic government. At the core of this is the principle that “a strong merit-based civil service is critical to a functioning democracy. It ensures that our government…continues to serve the American public without interruption, even though our leaders change.” The civil service counterbalances the political whims of the moment, ensuring that the basic functions of government continue no matter who happens to have won the most recent election.

Yet this meritocratic, nonpartisan structure has recently come under fire. In 2020, frustrated at resistance to their policy agenda by civil servants, the Trump administration created a new designation in the federal civil service: “Schedule F,” which would convert tens of thousands of executive branch employees from career civil servants whose responsibilities were to perform the technical aspects of their jobs to political appointees subject to firing at the whim of the president. 

The Biden administration almost immediately repealed the creation of Schedule F and has put in place regulations that would help civil servants keep their job protections even were Schedule F to be reinstated. Yet until codified into law such protections remain vulnerable to repeal by future administrations, an action that former President Trump has repeatedly expressed his intention of taking if elected. Attempts to pass laws providing stronger protections such as the Saving the Civil Service Act have yet to gain significant political momentum.

In this moment of political attacks on the civil service, it is crucial to evaluate ways that civil servants in the US and around the globe have wielded their influence to protect democracy and avoided falling prey to the political whims of would-be authoritarians.

Forms of Resistance and Barriers to Effectiveness

In addition to their distinct position of influence, civil servants face unique barriers to mobilization and some of the more influential forms of nonviolent resistance. For most similar professional workers, the labor strike is a potent political tool. Yet since the passage of the Taft-Hartley act in 1947, US civil servants have been legally prohibited from striking. Similar laws exist in other liberal democracies. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights upheld a German law that prohibits civil servants from striking, when it was challenged by several German teachers. In 2024, the International Labour Organization will seek an advisory opinion from the United Nations’ high court on the right to strike, which will have widespread effects on the utility of civil servant actions as a means of opposition. 

Civil service unions, then, are understandably cautious to call for strikes and instead rely on a variety of other tactics, such as judicial and legislative interventions to ensure their protection and resolution against unfair treatment that would likely otherwise lead to a strike. For example, in 2013, US workers successfully sued the federal government for breaking minimum-wage and overtime laws by withholding wages for essential workers, with the court ultimately ruling in plaintiffs’ favor. A similar case was also filed on behalf of two federal workers’ unions in 2019.

During attacks on democracy during the Trump Administration, US civil servants took a wide range of other kinds of actions short of legally-prohibited labor strikes, as outlined in this piece: joining public statements, whistleblowing, deliberate inefficiency and “slow-balling” job functions, and ultimately, resigning in protest. Civil servants spoke out against attempts to cripple the Mueller investigation, politicize the Department of Justice, and delays in election certification. 

One sector of the civil service that has found significant success as a lever of power to uphold democracy has been federal transportation workers, in particular the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). During the federal government shutdown from late 2018 into early 2019, TSA workers called in sick as a form of protest and multiple TSA unions filed lawsuits, leading to unprecedented staffing shortages and air travel delays. These combined efforts showed political leaders the costs of keeping the government closed and ultimately generated significant pressure to put an end to the longest government shutdown in US history. 

In the fall of 2023, when faced with the threat of another shutdown, TSA workers again rallied at major airports and elevated to national attention the threats to air travel posed by a shutdown, especially coming up against the holiday season. And while it is difficult to show a clear causal relationship when so many factors are at play, it appears likely that the impending risks to federal employees and everyday Americans alike were a factor in the last-minute spending bill that ultimately averted a government shutdown. 

International Examples

The Taft-Hartley Act has limited the range of action available to civil servants in the United States. Thus, to gain insights into the potential power of more direct civil servant action we have to turn to the rest of the world. In November 2023, several hundred thousand civil servants in Quebec––teachers, health professionals, and other social service workers––went on strike to demand better pay and working conditions. After several rounds of negotiations between the Quebec government and a coalition of major unions, multiple limited strikes and the threat of a general unlimited strike (which would have public sector workers striking indefinitely), both sides were able to reach tentative agreements, avoiding prolonged strikes and limits to healthcare, education, and other social services. This example illustrates the effectiveness of such coordinated strikes when they are conducted across wide swaths of the civil service.

And famously, the Kapp Putsch, a coup d’état in 1920 Germany that attempted to overthrow the Weimar Republic, failed primarily because of civil servants’ refusal to carry out the orders of Wolfgang Kapp and Walther von Lüttwitz, the illegitimate leaders of the coup government. Senior government officers refused to report for duty, government press offices were unable to publish Kapp’s manifesto because they had “misplaced” essential technology like typists and typewriters, and all the Berlin printers walked out in protest when two pro-government newspapers were occupied by the occupying military. These efforts of the government bureaucracy to refuse to cooperate with the coup government inspired other forms of civil resistance, including a more widespread general strike, bringing the country’s economy to a standstill. Within days, Kapp announced his resignation. 

In February 2003, 95% of civil servants in Guinea-Bissau participated in a series of general strikes to protest the withholding of overdue wages by the government, the anti-democratic President Kumba Iala, and the release of several opposition leaders that had been illegally arrested for their criticism of the Bissau-Guinean government. The strike happened in coordination with a protest march of human rights activists and labor leaders through downtown Bissau, as well as a week of widespread sporadic protests throughout the country and a rally held by the Union for Change, the Guinea-Bissau Resistance Party, and the African Party for the Independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde. In the end, the government and the striking parties reached a satisfactory resolution, but the government’s slow pace to meet their ends of the demands prompted another strike a few weeks later. This time, once again, more than 90% of public servants participated in the general strike to demand the government fulfill their promises.

Ultimately, the final round of strikes were moderately successful: while the campaign did not force the resignation of President Iala nor completely halt unlawful detentions of dissidents, the government did release several detainees and agreed to pay overdue wages and provide necessary additional food and medical assistance to civil servants. More importantly, however, the breadth and coordination of the striking coalition––ranging from human rights groups and media organizations to the Bissau-Guinean Bar Association to government bureaucrats and the officials they served––sent a message of the strength and power behind their efforts to both the government and the larger international community.

In 2007, several public sector unions went on strike in Fiji in protest against budget rebalancing measures––such as pay cuts and changes to the retirement age––made by the military government that had staged a coup and come to power in 2006. Participating unions included over 1,400 nurses, 1,000 teachers, and hundreds of public works employees in coordinated efforts for the interim government to restore wages and call attention to the illegitimacy of the coup’s mandate to govern. And while ultimately, the Fijian military government modestly acquiesced to some of the unions’ demands, in subsequent years after the strike, in 2009, it passed several measures that dramatically restricted the rights of federal workers to organize, bargain collectively, and conduct a strike. Additionally, in 2011, Amnesty International reported the arrests and harassment of several prominent union leaders and staffers by Fijian authorities, in direct violation of the ILO (International Labour Organization) Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. 

The above examples span history, geography, and motivations. Public sector unions striking for fair wages and benefits, for example, can seem distinct from civil servants intentionally creating bureaucratic snarls through direct action (or often inaction). And yet all these examples––however disparate they might appear––give us clarity around the breadth of power that civil servants wield when they are organized around a common objective, be it improving their working conditions or protecting democracy. In a constitutional crisis, where more dramatic action might be called for, these kinds of direct tactics would be a powerful, essential part of any pro-democracy movement.

Conclusion

Civil servants, while often forgotten players in the functions (or dysfunctions)of government, nonetheless hold tremendous power. Civil service resistance has been most successful in achieving its objectives when civil servants take seriously the obligations of their oaths of office to uphold governmental institutions––not the whims of an administration or executive––and work from the essential fact that, ultimately, the power of the political leaders they serve is directly derived from their active consent and cooperation.

By virtue of the work they do on a daily basis––regulating roads and transportation systems, processing identification information and licenses, performing essential clerical and administrative work, implementation of a plethora of policies from the mundane to the complex––they can utilize their skills and access to be decisive linchpins in the success or failure of democracy.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

Works Consulted (in approximate order of appearance): 

US Bishops and the January 6th Capitol Attack on Democracy: A Pillars of Support Caselet

*By Adam Fefer.
Time Period: 2021
Location: United States
Main Actors: US Conference of Catholic Bishops
Tactics
- Declarations by organizations and institutions
- Letters of opposition or support
- Signed public statements
- Newspapers and Journals
- Digital video and audio art

This caselet is about US Catholic bishops’ responses to the January 6th Capitol attack. Why did some bishops denounce the attack as anti-democratic while others merely called for peace or stayed quiet? On the one hand, Catholic teaching on the sanctity and protection of life places bishops on the traditionalist side of issues like abortion and physician-assisted suicide. On the other hand, Catholic social and economic teaching places bishops on the progressive side of issues like universal healthcare, the living wage, debt reduction for developing nations, and immigration (Fichter et al. 2019). Bishops focused on so-called “life issues” (especially abortion) seem to have been less likely to view the attack as anti-democratic. By contrast, bishops who take a broader “seamless garment” approach to Catholic social and economic teaching seem to have been more likely to take a strong stand against the attack.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) occupies a unique role in American religion: no other denomination has an authoritative, ecclesiastical body like it. The temporal focus of this caselet is mostly January 2021, the month where many bishops issued condemnations of the attacks and of Donald Trump’s incendiary behavior. The geographical focus is largely on archdioceses of the most populous US cities. The conclusion offers other examples of Catholic political activity that are relevant to pro-democracy organizing.

I. Catholics’ Right Turn and Persistent Divisions
The January 6th attack exemplified the US’ increasing democratic backsliding, especially since 2016 (Williamson 2023). US backsliding is largely a Republican Party-led phenomenon. This is true nationally, where leaders like Donald Trump have undermined the integrity of elections and checks on executive power. It is also true sub-nationally, where Republican-led state legislatures have furthered voter suppression and racial gerrymandering (Grumbach 2022). 

The US Catholic clergy and laity are divided on partisan lines (Audi & Rocca 2015). Roughly 48% of Catholic voters self-describe as Republican while 47% self-describe as Democrats (Smith 2020). These divisions are relatively new, tracing to the late 20th century. In the early 20th century, by contrast, Catholics supported the Democratic Party. For example, between 70-80% of Catholics voted for FDR in 1936 (Rozell 2022, Catholic University of America 2023). As a predominantly immigrant, working class bloc, Catholics were key beneficiaries of FDR’s New Deal (McAndrews 2021). Official Catholic doctrine is also progressive on many issues: support for a strong welfare state and immigration as well as opposition to the death penalty and nuclear deterrence (Feldman 2006). These concerns have been conceptualized as a “consistent ethic of life.” During the early 20th century, the Catholic clergy was relatively apolitical; parish-specific issues like education and spiritual guidance dominated the Catholic agenda (Sammon 2008).

By the mid-twentieth century, Catholics had more fully integrated into American society and the middle class (Massa 2021). This was aided by Catholics’ strong support for the Cold War crusade against so-called “godless” communists. However, JFK met fierce opposition from (particularly Evangelical) protestants who feared that he would act as a puppet for the Vatican. These trends of integration were exemplified by JFK’s 1960 presidential campaign and the decline of overt anti-Catholicism. During this time, Catholic clergy and their upwardly mobile laity became more politically engaged (McAndrews 2021). For example, liberal Catholics spoke out against the Vietnam War and in favor of civil rights. Meanwhile, an increasingly vocal conservative clergy focused on issues of perceived moral decline, like abortion and contraception. 

The 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision was a landmark in US Catholic history (Sammon 2008). Catholic clergy and laity mobilized vigorously against the decision. In doing so, Catholics found common ground with Evangelical Christians in their mutual hostility toward abortion, school desegregation, LGBTQ+ rights, and feminism. Since then, conservative Catholic activists have worked to make abortion a “non-negotiable” part of Catholic political identification. This is especially the case among white, church-going Catholics (Feldman 2006). These changes upended previous patterns of Catholic support. For example, Reagan obtained between 54-61% of the Catholic vote in his 1984 reelection campaign (Prendergast 1999). Abortion has become a central part of Catholic politics. 

Despite being split on partisan lines, Catholic majorities have consistently supported winning presidential candidates. This includes both Reagan campaigns, both Bill Clinton campaigns, and both Obama campaigns. However, these patterns break down when examining ethnicity, religiosity, and income (Gray & Bendyna 2008). For example, despite Donald Trump winning the Catholic vote, Hispanic Catholics supported Hilary Clinton by a margin of 67-26 (Martinez & Smith 2016). The Trump presidency energized many liberal Catholics, who detested his “Muslim travel ban” and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric (Barb 2022). However, progressive Catholic interests are relatively marginalized in institutions like USCCB.

II. The January 6th Campaign and Catholic Bishops’ Tactics
The 2020 election campaign witnessed “unprecedented levels” of polarization among Catholic bishops and the US population writ large (Gayte 2022, 113). Such polarization continues as the USCCB has failed to issue an updated “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” document, which informs Catholics’ political obligations (Reese 2022). For example, DiNardo claimed in 2019 that climate change is “important” but not “urgent” (Schlumpf 2019). Olmsted endorsed the view that Biden should not receive communion (Catholic News Agency 2021). This culminated in the January 6th attack, which exemplified many Republican elites’ disdain for a key tenet of democracy, namely that parties accept election results (Williamson 2023).

The bishops’ pro-democracy responses to January 6th consisted of multiple tactics. These included signed public statements, declarations by organizations and institutions, letters of opposition or support, and interviews with journalists. 

It should first be noted that Catholic leaders and institutions outside of USCCB also spoke out against the January 6th attack. For example, Father James Martin wrote an op-ed denouncing the attack, while Catholic laity held commemorative vigils for January 6th a year later (Martin 2021, Jenkins 2022). The Leadership Conference of Women Religious (2021) released a newsletter denouncing the attacks. And the Catholic lobby NETWORK also issued a response (2021) to the “violent effort by extremists to overthrow the United States government.” Finally, Catholic media including America Magazine (2021) and National Catholic Reporter (2021) also denounced the attacks.

We can begin our analysis of bishops with Los Angeles Archbishop José H. Gomez, also USCCB’s president. Gomez expressed that “peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of this great nation. In this troubling moment, we must recommit ourselves to the values and principles of our democracy” (USCCB 2021a). Gomez’s response was noteworthy given his statements both before and after January 6, 2021. For example, on January 20, Gomez authored a letter stating, “that our new President [Biden] has pledged to pursue certain policies [related to abortion] that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity” (USCCB 2021b). Gomez’s letter furthered divisions among US bishops. For example, Chicago’s Cardinal Blase J. Cupich authored his own letter in response, which called Gomez’s statement “ill-considered” and issued without other bishops’ prior consultation (White 2021). This exchange highlights the centrality of abortion politics in USCCB.

In Chicago, Cardinal Cupich lamented “the deliberate erosion of the norms of our system of government [and] violence in the service of a falsehood,” prayed for “the peaceful and orderly transition of power” and implored elected officials to “recognize threats to democracy, no matter their source” (Archdiocese of Chicago 2021). Philadelphia’s Archbishop Nelson J. Perez affirmed that “Regardless of political affiliation, we are united by democracy,” expressing his gratitude to those who “worked through a dark day in our history to ensure the peaceful transition of power” (Archdiocese of Philadelphia 2021). And in one of the most forceful statements, San Diego’s Bishop (now Cardinal) Robert McElroy said “We must be clear in identifying this moment as the logical trajectory of the last four years of President Trump's leadership of our country…we have stood by without giving greater witness to the terrible danger that leadership rooted in division brings to a democratic society” (White 2021).

Other archbishops’ responses are noteworthy for their omissions. For example, New York’s Cardinal Timothy Dolan condemned “the man [Trump] who should be leading us…[for] stoking these flames” (Lavenburg 2021). Although Dolan omitted mention of the attack on democracy, his direct criticism of Trump was surprising in light of his behavior during the 2020 campaign. Indeed, Dolan had called Trump a great friend, “salute[d] Trump’s leadership” on Fox News, and gave a prayer at the 2020 Republican National convention (White 2020, Warren Davis 2020).

In addition to Dolan, San Antonio’s Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller, Dallas’ Bishop Edward J. Burns, and the Diocese of Austin all tweeted for “peace” without explicitly mentioning the attack on democracy (Gledhill 2021, Guidos 2021). Meanwhile, Houston’s Cardinal Daniel DiNardo and Phoenix’s Bishop Thomas Olmsted were noteworthy for their silence, unsurprising in light of their conservative views on social issues. These omissions cohere with Reese’s (2020) finding that across 160 USCCB press releases between 2019-20, bishops were unlikely to criticize Trump by name and instead make references to his “administration.”

What patterns can we glean from these varied responses? Consider first the bishops who diagnosed January 6th as an attack on democracy. One thing that stands out is their broad political agendas that encompass more than just abortion. For example, both Bishop McElroy and Cardinal Cupich have been strong advocates for immigration, anti-poverty, and the environment, lamenting the church’s narrow focus on abortion (O'Loughlin 2015). Archbishops Perez and Gomez also have strong records on immigration and poverty, although they seem content with the USCCB’s prioritization of abortion (Gayte 2022). Looking at the neutral or silent responses, one finds bishops who are more singularly focused on abortion, including Cardinal DiNardo (Reese 2019).

III. Beyond USCCB and January 6th
Looking beyond USCCB and January 6, there are several domains of Catholic political activity that may be relevant to pro-democracy organizing. To begin, bishops and parishioners have criticized prominent Catholic politicians with anti-democratic sympathies. Ron DeSantis in Florida and Greg Abbot in Texas have faced Catholic backlash, albeit more for their stances on immigration and capital punishment (Scanlon 2023, Guidos 2022, Nowlin 2020). It is crucial that Catholic organizers recognize the threats DeSantis and Abbot pose to democratic practices such as voting rights and lawful protests (ACLU 2023, 2024). 

A second domain is higher education, where Catholic leaders at universities like Notre Dame, Fordham, and Villanova have denounced Donald Trump’s immigration ban and racist rhetoric (Jenkins 2020). As with Catholic governors, university leaders could go further by identifying Trump’s threat to democracy. Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (2021) was exemplary in this respect, providing a host of analyses that linked the January 6th attack to narrow self-interest, charismatic demagoguery, and disinformation. 

Finally, Catholic podcasts have become important forums for articulating pro-democracy agendas and shaping parishioners’ beliefs via digital video and audio art. For example, The Commonweal Podcast and Just Politics have broadcast episodes entitled “Should Catholics Promote Democracy?” and “Actual Strategies for Saving Democracy,” respectively. NETWORK, a Catholic lobby for social justice, has sponsored a three-part “White Supremacy and American Christianity” series. Organizing via podcasts and universities may help reach youth voters, a key demographic, yet one that is more religiously disengaged. 

IV. The Future of Pro-Democracy Catholic Politics
The USCCB’s right-wing orientation that prioritizes abortion may generate pessimism that Catholics can be a pillar of democracy. However, there are several sources of optimism. First, Catholics are more liberal than Evangelicals --and many mainline Protestants-- on issues like immigration, affirmative action, and social welfare (Sammon 2008). Relatedly, the Catholic church is among the US’ most racially integrated and diverse Christian denominations (Lipka 2015). This cluster of issues may serve to push Catholics toward politicians who emphasize inclusive, multiracial democracy.

A second reason for optimism is that Catholics are a key swing constituency. Because official church doctrine pushes them in opposite political directions, strategic political parties cannot expect unwavering Catholic support. In addition, Catholic voters are concentrated in midwestern swing states. That Donald Trump courted fringe Catholic elites --like the conspiracist Carlo Maria Viganò-- during his 2020 campaign may serve to further push Catholics away from leaders who propagate conspiracies about elections (Anti-Defamation League 2023).

Finally, and concerning bishops specifically, Pope Francis appointed many bishops who wish to broaden USCCB’s agenda and prioritize social and economic issues (Allen 2016). Although these bishops currently constitute less than a quarter of the USCCB, they have been outspoken in attempting to change the conference’s priorities. Especially in the post-Roe environment, many USCCB bishops have taken a conservative hard line on issues like trans rights and the religious liberty to discriminate. So long as such issues continue to direct the conference’s agenda, many bishops and parishioners may continue to support anti-democratic politicians.

Discussion Questions 

  1. Catholicism is a very hierarchical denomination. How might bishops best use these hierarchies to engage priests and deacons in pro-democracy activity?
  2. In addition to abortion, some Catholic parishioners prioritize “culture war” issues (e.g., related gender and racial identities) over issues relating to US democracy. How might these priorities be reversed? 
  3. How might Catholic organizations educate more Catholics to consider issues beyond abortion when deciding who to vote for at the local, state, and national level?

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

References

- ACLU. (2023). “ACLU Of Florida Condemns Passage Of Anti-Voter Bill In Florida Legislature.”
- ACLU. (2024). “ACLU Of Texas And ACLU Urge Texas’ Highest Criminal Court To Review Conviction Of Peaceful Protesters.”
- Allen, J. L. (2016). “With Pope’s cardinal picks, Bernardin’s ‘seamless garment’ is back.” Crux
- America Magazine. (2021). “The January 6 Insurrection Is Still a Crisis for American Democracy.”
- Anti-Defamation League. (2023). “Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.”
- Archdiocese of Chicago. (2021) “Statement of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, on Today’s Attack on Democracy at the U.S. Capitol.”
- Archdiocese of Philadelphia. (2021). “Statement of Most Reverend Nelson J. Pérez Regarding Yesterday’s Violent Protests at the United States Capitol.”
- Audi, T. & Rocca, F. X. (2015). “The Bishops’ Theological Divide.” Wall Street Journal.
- Barb, A. (2022). “Catholic Patterns in the American Left.” In M. Gayte, B. Chelini-Pont, M. J. Rozell (Eds.), Catholics and US Politics After the 2020 Elections, pp 25-45. Springer.
- Catholic University of America. (2023). “Catholics and the 1936 Roosevelt Victory.”
- Catholic News Agency. (2021). “Phoenix bishop warns of ‘deadly apathy’ of silence on pro-abortion Catholic politicians.”
- The Commonweal Podcast. (2022). “Should Catholics Promote Democracy?”.
- Davison, M. (2021). “Panel urges stop to Trump administration planned executions.” National Catholic Register.
- Feldman, G. (2006). Unholy Alliance: Suppressing Catholic Teachings in Subservience to Republican Ascendance in America. Political Theology, 7(2), 137-179.
- Fichter, S. J., Gaunt, T. P., Perl, P. M., & Hoegeman, C. (2019). Catholic Bishops in the United States: Church Leadership in the Third Millennium. Oxford University Press, USA.
- Gayte, M. (2022). “A Climax in the Culture Wars? The US Bishops and the 2020 Election.” In M. Gayte, B. Chelini-Pont, M. J. Rozell (Eds.), Catholics and US Politics After the 2020 Elections, pp 103-132. Springer.
- Gledhill, R. (2021). “US bishops pray for peace as Capitol under siege.” The Tablet.
- Gray, M. M. & Bendyna, M. E. (2008). “Between Church, Party, & Conscience: Protecting Life and Promoting Social Justice among U.S. Catholics.” In K. E. Heyer and M. J. Rozell (Eds.) Catholics and Politics: The Dynamic Tension Between Faith and Power, pp. 75-92. Georgetown University Press
- Grumbach, J. (2022). Laboratories against democracy: How national parties transformed state politics. Princeton University Press.
- Guidos, R. (2021). “Chaos stops electoral vote count as Trump supporters mob U.S. Capitol.” Catholic Review.
- Guidos, R. (2023). “Bishops: Using migrants as political pawns ‘offends God’.” America: the Jesuit Review. 
- Jenkins, J. (2020). “Theologians, activists, former bishops staff urge Catholic voters to oppose Trump.” National Catholic Review.
- Jenkins, J. (2022). “On Jan. 6, vigils recall the insurrection with competing narratives.” Religious News Service.
- Lavenburg, J. (2021). “Cardinal Dolan accuses Trump of ‘stoking the flames’ in Capitol violence.” Crux.
Leadership Conference of Women Religious. (2021). “LCWR and Other Faith Leaders Speak Out Against Assault on the Capitol.”
- Lipka, M. (2015). “The most and least racially diverse U.S. religious groups.” Pew Research Center.
- Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (2021). “Violence at the Capitol.”
- Martin, J. (2021). “How Catholic Leaders Helped Give Rise to Violence at the U.S. Capitol.” America Magazine.
- Martinez, J. & Smith, G. A. (2016). “How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis.” Pew Research Center.
- Massa, M. (2021). “Anti-Catholicism in the United States.” In M. M. McGuinness and T. F. Rzeznik (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to American Catholicism, pp 197-215. Cambridge University Press.
- McAndrews, L. J. (2021). “Catholics and Politics.” In M. M. McGuinness and T. F. Rzeznik (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to American Catholicism, pp 159-178. Cambridge University Press.
- National Catholic Reporter. (2021). “Editorial: Catholics need to confess their complicity in the failed coup.”
- NETWORK. (2021). “Catholic Lobby Responds to the Violent Siege of the U.S. Capitol.”
- Nowlin, S. (2020). “All 16 of Texas' Catholic Bishops Blast Gov. Greg Abbott, Who's Catholic, for Decision Not to Accept Refugees.” San Antonio Current.
- O'Loughlin, M. (2015). “US bishops press on with marriage, religious freedom goals.” Crux.
- Prendergast, William B. (1999). The Catholic Vote in American Politics. Georgetown University Press.
- Reese, T. (2019). “Abortion preeminent issue, global warming not urgent, say bishops.” National Catholic Reporter.
- Reese, T. (2020). “Analysis: Catholic bishops reprimand Trump as often as they praise him.” America Magazine.
- Reese, T. (2022). “Catholic bishops punt again on 'Faithful Citizenship,' reflecting divisions on politics.” National Catholic Register.
- Rozell, M. J. (2022). “The “Catholic Vote” in the United States.” In M. Gayte, B. Chelini-Pont, M. J. Rozell (Eds.), Catholics and US Politics After the 2020 Elections, pp 1-22. Springer.
- Sammon, M. R. (2008). “The Politics of the U.S. Catholic Bishops: The Centrality of Abortion.” In K. E. Heyer and M. J. Rozell (Eds.) Catholics and Politics: The Dynamic Tension Between Faith and Power, pp. 11-26 Georgetown University Press
- Scanlon, K. (2023). “Florida's Catholic bishops criticize DeSantis for lowering death penalty threshold.” National Catholic Reporter. 
- Schlumpf, H. (2019). “Bishops' meeting reveals division over how to influence political debate.” National Catholic Register.
- Smith, G. (2020). “8 facts about Catholics and politics in the U.S.” Pew Research Center.
- U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (2021a). “U.S. Bishops’ President Condemns Violent Protests and Prays for Safety as Chaos Threatens U.S. Capitol.”
- U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (2021b). “USCCB President's Statement on the Inauguration of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as 46th President of the United States of America.”
- Warren Davis, M. (2020). “The USCCB Just Showed Its Hand.” Crisis Magazine.
- White, C. (2020). “Trump Says He’s ‘Best President’ in History of Church History in Call with Catholic Leaders.” Crux Now.
- White, C. (2021a). “‘You reap what you sow’: Some bishops decry violence at Capitol.” National Catholic Reporter.
- White, C. (2021b). “Dueling Statements from Bishops, Pope, on Inauguration Day.” National Catholic Reporter.
- Williamson, V. (2023). “Understanding democratic decline in the United States.” Brookings Institute.

Understanding Pillars of Support

Horizons has been focusing on how various Pillars of Support, notably faith-based organizations, businesses, unions & professional associations, and veterans/military groups, have contributed to authoritarian systems and how they have supported pro-democracy movements in the US and globally.

To complement our pillars-focused research and organizing, we have developed this short, 5-min video focused on what pillars of support are, why they matter, and what it means to both engage and pressure key pillars as part of pro-democracy organizing that reaches beyond the base.

We hope that activists, organizers, trainers, educators, bridgers, funders, and other democracy practitioners will find this tool helpful in your daily work. Please feel free to share the video with interested folks.

Thanks, and we look forward to joining forces in this critical year for democracy in the US and around the world!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG95BdVEnNw

Resource type

Tags

Search