Tag: Private Sector

*This article was written by Chief Network Weaver Julia Roig.

There is ample evidence that democracies around the world are being threatened by authoritarian populist forces, and that the best antidote to stemming this tide is broad-based, “big tent” organizing to stand up for democratic norms and freedoms. This multi-sectoral, cross-ideological approach is the basis for the Horizons Project Pillars of Support initiative; a framework to analyze and engage key institutions that uphold democracy, including businesses, faith organizations, professional associations, unions, and veterans’ groups.

In partnership with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University, Horizons has been focusing on the business pillar, amongst others, to highlight the incentives, strategies, and tactics that businesses have used around the world and in the US to join the fight for democracy. Creating opportunities to build relationships and collective action between different pillars is also an important component of pro-democracy organizing. In September, Horizons convened two business for democracy events: (1) in collaboration with Professor Daniel Kinderman, we held an international exchange over Zoom with pro-democracy business leaders from Europe; and (2) with support from many partners, we brought together a virtual salon with business leaders and democracy activists. The following is a summary of the insights and learnings from those two events.

Call for Courage. There are many organizations in the US making the case for why democracy is good for business and offering different frameworks and advice on the role that businesses can play to support democracy. And yet, many business leaders remain risk-averse in the US, not wanting to wade into what is seen as polarizing partisan politics. Colleagues from Europe clearly noted the importance of understanding the stakes, and the need for courageous leadership amongst the business community at this moment. The brave role for business is both to take public stands, but can also be quiet work behind the scenes, such as conversations with influential stakeholders and direct funding for pro-democracy efforts.

Collective Action Helps to Mitigate Risk. Many noted the opportunity to mitigate risks to any one company through participation in geographically based or industry-focused associations (such as Welcome Saxony in Germany, or the US National Association of Manufacturers). Although sometimes trade associations are hard to move, if one company takes a courageous stand it can influence their peers to also move. But it was noted that committed leaders within business associations should share their experiences widely, including the arguments they use for inviting business participation and the strategic actions and pro-democracy programming they prioritize. There is often more energy for these coalitional efforts at the sub-national level such as Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy, but connecting those state or region-level associations together for national-level action is also important.

Protecting Democracy Beyond Elections. Standing up to autocratic, extremist political parties and candidates during elections is very important, as business leaders clearly have done recently in countries like Poland, Brazil, and Germany, and continue to do throughout the US. It was noted that autocrats are often democratically elected, making common cause with centrist groups and then degrading democratic institutions and norms once in office, such as the case in Hungary. At the same time, focusing only on supporting get out the vote (GOTV) programs and giving employees time off to vote is insufficient to combat the nature of the populist, authoritarian threat. Even with close electoral pro-democracy wins, extremist factions remain a powerful force to contend with in each of these countries which requires sustained interventions and a long-term perspective to pro-democracy organizing.

Role of Employees. In some European cases, business leaders reported an overwhelmingly positive response from their employees when they took a firm stand for democracy and began participating actively in pro-democracy business coalitions. It was also noted the leverage that employees have to pressure companies to either stop providing financial support to undemocratic candidates/parties, or to get off the sidelines and participate more actively in upholding democratic norms, policies and institutions. Identifying employees in key businesses or industries who may come from civil society backgrounds can serve as potential allies for pro-democracy organizers and help with internal pressure to incentivize private sector action.

Importance of Supporting Institutions and Investment in Political Leadership. Panelists extolled the need to help re-establish trust in institutions and to speak with respect about and to public officials and civil servants. It was noted that businesses should be engaged with building nonpartisan democratic infrastructure and democratic innovations, such as alternative forms of voting and civic participation like citizen assemblies. Some private sector leaders in Europe are also mobilizing the sector to invest resources to establish a pipeline of new political leaders, such as the Multitudes Foundation and the Apolitical Foundation, working to train young people in civil society to run for office - currently operating in 50 countries, but not yet in the US.

Critical Need for Citizen Education and Resources for Pro-Democracy Organizing. Some of the business associations in Europe are involved with non-partisan civic education programs to ensure an educated citizenry. They also run trainings for their members on topics of combating hate and racism, engaging with stakeholders, and how businesses and employees can get more involved in civic initiatives in their communities. Additionally, some business leaders in Europe understand the need for a strong pro-democracy civil society and have created foundations specifically to provide resources to nonprofits to organize and mobilize, as well as to conduct other citizen engagement programs and media campaigns.

Making the Business and the Economic Case Against Autocracy. Some noted that autocratic regimes are often good for certain industries or crony-insiders, and in the short-term promises of less taxes and less regulation can sound very good for businesses’ bottom line. In the long-term, however, the overall business operating environment suffers in a country with the presence of anti-democratic, extremist populism exactly because of the crony capitalism and diminished rule of law. Our colleagues in Europe made a strong case for connecting the different fields of economics, democracy, and politics, and to help make a clear economic case for why support for autocracy is not in the interest of the private sector. This may require businesses to get more involved in coalitions targeting direct advocacy efforts, for example on immigration policies, or stand together with other sectors to take a firm public stand against political actors that espouse hate or political violence, or who actively use executive power to punish political opponents. It will also take activists allowing for business to rely on arguments of economic self-interest as a way to engage them meaningfully in the pro-democracy agenda.

Understanding and Applying History. While historic contexts are different across regions, speakers reflected on the importance of situating the current rise of authoritarianism, and actions needed, within a country’s specific history. For one thing, populism is not a new thing; and autocratic or fascist leaders have come into power through valid elections over the last century with the support of private sector actors. A country like Germany has a special responsibility and commitment to fight against far-right fascists and extremism; and throughout Eastern Europe there remains a strong connection to the bravery of citizens who toppled communist dictatorship and fought for their democratic freedoms. In the US context, understanding that we only achieved true democracy with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, putting an end to Jim Crow, helps to connect the resurgence of white nationalist movements and racist, xenophobic political rhetoric with the current threats to democracy.

Veneer of Business as Usual. During the Q&A with our international guests, many asked about how to incentivize more courage amongst US business leaders, and one compelling response was to make the case that extremist populism and autocracy is chaotic and unstable. From the European experience, many business leaders may have felt confident that they will be able to continue to operate normally and “do business” with an autocratic regime based on their negotiating prowess and relying on rational policy arguments; but dealing with autocrats is not the same as negotiating with business partners. In Hungary under Orban, the first years were good for business and the tax rate for business remains low. But more recently, he has been nationalizing industries, giving preferential business opportunities to friends and punishing enemies in the private sector who have no legal recourse with a captured judiciary. Even if autocrats can be good for some entrepreneurs, especially those closest to the autocrat, they are never good for business as a whole or capable of providing a path for long-term prosperity.

It will Take an Array of Approaches to Influence the Business Community. During the business-activist salon, participants highlighted that the climate movement leveraged both the activism, boycotts, and pressure campaigns organized by Greenpeace and boardroom conversations with senior executives to move the business community in a more pro-climate direction. A spectrum of approaches is needed to do the same for democracy. In 2020, there was a sense of inherent risk in not speaking out for democracy in the US. That has changed dramatically in the last four years, in large part because businesses that are taking public stands like Disney, Target, and Budweiser have been targeted. Businesses see staying silent as the less risky option. Because the boardroom risk analysis in 2024 is not in favor of speaking out for democracy, it will take activism to shift that risk calculus. Activists also need to build relationships with moderate conservatives and small business owners. Because business is not a monolith and each sector—and each corporation—is different, it is worth acknowledging the businesses that take positive steps related to democracy, adding a carrot to the activist toolkit, alongside the stick.

Additional Resources

For more on Pillars of Support:
- Overview of the concept
- Business-specific page
- Business-specific case studies
- All case studies of pillars of society standing up for democracy

Recognizing and Countering Authoritarian Threats to Democracy: The Role for Business by Elizabeth Doty and Daniel Kinderman
How does Business Fare Under Populism by Rachel Kleinfeld
Corporate Civic Playbook, Civic Alliance
Corporate Civic Action Plan, Leadership Now Project

On the Impact of Autocracy on Business Performance:
- Democratic erosion causes economic decline. Here are the 7 kinds of business at highest risk. The Brookings Institution
- 10 Reasons Why Trump is Bad for Business. (Slide deck) Third Way
- Goldman Sachs analysis on Harris vs. Trump victory
- The Employees Who Gave the Most to Trump and Biden (employee giving) in the 2020 election.
- As CEOs, we will not tolerate threats against Arizona election workers. Op-ed from Arizona CEOs launching Leadership Now Arizona.
- Live database from CREW tracking corporate giving to election deniers.
- Accountable.us tracker.
- The book “The Order of the Day” describes the relationship between business leaders and politics in Germany in the 1930s.

*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.

*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.

*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.

*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.

*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.

*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.

*This article was written by former Director of Applied Research Jonathan Pinckney.

Why should business leaders care about authoritarianism?

There is a long-standing recognition among many American business leaders that fostering a democratic political environment is in the interest of American businesses. The research is clear: Democracy is good for business. Populism, polarization, and rising authoritarianism undermine a free market economy, punitively and inefficiently politicize tax and regulatory policy, and create significant political risk. While supporting political leaders who undermine democracy may yield short-term benefits, it does not provide the foundation for stable business growth. Multi-national companies have well-developed responsible business principles and best practices for engaging foreign governments and civic groups in fragile democracies, but the sector is just recently turning needed attention to the alarming rate of democratic decline in the US.

Beyond the general advantages of fostering democracy, individual companies have much to gain from leading in pro-democracy work. In a survey of 3,000 Americans, 76% said they would prefer to work at companies that promote democracy, and 81% said they were more likely to recommend those companies’ products.

Thus far, much of the work to promote democracy by businesses has been limited to areas such as get-out-the-vote programs, civic engagement partnerships or depolarization initiatives, all important efforts, but with limited impact given the problem’s scale. As a resurgent debate about the role of business in society becomes increasingly politicized, especially around issues of ESG and DEI, there is a dedicated authoritarian faction deploying tried and true tactics to divide the country while undermining core democratic institutions. This dynamic has opened criticisms of the “politicization of business” and calls for corporate restraint in politics. There is an urgent need, however, for corporations and business leaders to distinguish between normal politics and attempts to roll back democracy. Partnering with others to take courageous stands in the face of these anti-democratic forces is critical, requiring better alignment and coordination with the diverse, trans-partisan pro-democracy civil society ecosystem in the US.

How can business leaders support the pro-democracy ecosystem?

• Business leaders can be powerful persuaders for democracy through making public statements condemning anti-democratic practices and upholding the rule of law. Such statements are particularly powerful when made in concert with social movement leaders and other “unlikely allies.” For example, the US Chamber of Commerce joint statement with the AFL-CIO on the day of the 2020 election sent a powerful signal that American society was united in its demand for a free and fair election, and a statement by over 70 Black executives condemning a 2021 Georgia law restricting voting rights helped show corporate America’s support for democratic rights.

• Statements can send powerful signals but are typically insufficient when not backed up by concrete action. Beyond statements, business leaders can refuse to cooperate with authoritarian practices, cutting off their normal patterns of interaction with political leaders and organizations that undermine democracy to continue. For instance, after the January 6^th insurrection, nearly 150 companies ended their campaign contributions to the members of Congress who refused to certify the 2020 election.

• Businesses can also provide material support for key activities by social movements and civil society organizations working directly to advance democracy. Charitable donations are just one piece in a much larger tactical repertoire, and often not the most effective piece. Businesses also have deep resources of technical expertise, insider knowledge, and human capital that can be leveraged to support pro-democracy work. Several American companies have provided their employees with paid time off to vote, protest, or dedicate time and resources to pro-democracy actions.

• Business leaders can play a key role in bridgebuilding and negotiation. Business leaders can leverage their relationships to political elites to advocate for democracy in private, and, when appropriate, act as trusted intermediaries between movements and government leaders. For instance, during the Greensboro, North Carolina lunch counter sit-ins in the civil rights movement executives from the Burlington Fabrics company organized a committee of civic leaders that, through their negotiations with lunch counter business owners, helped give greater legitimacy to the Black student-led sit-ins and facilitated Greensboro’s desegregation.

The Horizons Project’s Work

The Horizons Project recognizes the importance of the business community as a force for democracy and is engaging with many diverse business leaders and coalitions to help establish a common framework to understand and combat the authoritarian threat; and link the corporate sector more strategically with the pro-democracy civil society ecosystem. We are reaching out to or partnering with organizations such as the Civic Alliance, Leadership Now, the Erb Institute at the University of Michigan, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Business for America, the American Sustainable Business Network’s Business for Democracy working group, the Business Roundtable, and the Ethical Capitalism Group.

• Research and Analysis: As part of its larger pillars of support project, Horizons is examining how businesses have helped protect democracy both in the US and in other countries during democratic backsliding, and the most effective ways for businesses to leverage their unique position to do so. We will be working with business leaders to share the results of this research, providing practical tools and ideas to help shift priorities and collective action to pro-actively protect democracy from the current authoritarian threat. Horizons will be producing short, action-focused publications and, together with partners, hold a series of salons on Business and Democracy in 2023.

• Relationship-Building: Research shows that business efforts to promote social good are most effective when done in concert with social movements, and that protecting and restoring American democracy will require united effort across a wide range of sectors. Horizons is building connective tissue between business leaders and other key nodes in the pro-democracy ecosystem to strategize how efforts at protecting democracy can be most effectively coordinated both at the state level and nationally. We plan to organize both formal events and informal conversations between business leaders, grassroots organizers, and others in the pro-democracy space to help build the foundations for united action to protect democracy as we move towards the 2024 election and beyond.

December is a month to both reflect on the past year and look ahead. As we surveyed 2022, we compiled these top insights to share with you from our organizing efforts over the last 12 months. And to help us all look ahead, check out this recent report by the Democracy Funders Network, Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy. You can read more about why this future-orientation is so needed for broad-based movement-building in this article: Pro-Democracy Forces Need to Go on the Offense.

Looking into the future doesn’t mean we don’t also have to continue to grapple with our nation’s history; in fact, one of our most-used phrases this past year has been “it’s both/and!” More in Common released an interesting report in December Diffusing the History Wars: Finding Common Ground in Teaching America’s Story. And, Trevor Smith and Aria Florant describe this polarity between past and present beautifully in their recent piece, On the Other Side of Reparations, A New World Awaits. “If we want to achieve a reparations process for Black Americans and create a new reparative world, perhaps we need to imagine what lies on the other side of reparations…our storytelling… must be expansive in ways that allow people to see themselves in a new world that awaits them.”

Happy Holidays from the Horizons Team! Enjoy some other resources we’ve been reading, watching, and listening to in December:

READING

Is America Still on the Path to Authoritarianism?

by Brian Klaas

While many celebrated the results of the November mid-terms elections in the US as a “win for democracy,” this article explains in detail why “the specter of authoritarianism will continue to loom large for many years to come.” Using the analogy of democracy as a sandcastle: “in the past, democracies were destroyed in a single big wave. It could be a coup, a civil war, a revolution, or an elected dictator seizing power. But those ways of destroying the sandcastle are rarer these days. Instead, the tide comes in very slowly, and each wave laps away at the sandcastle, taking a few grains of sand with it each time. It’s so much slower than the forces that people picture when they think of democracy being destroyed that most people in the country don’t even notice the damage that’s been done. But sure enough, America’s democratic sandcastle has eroded, slowly and steadily.”

Why Bother Bridging Differences in College, Anyway?

by Manu Meel in Greater Good Magazine

The CEO of BridgeUSA tells the story of his journey to bridgebuilding, and the importance of this work on college campuses. “There are few institutions in American society as well-positioned as higher education to build bridges across lines of difference and create spaces for empathy, dialogue, and intellectual curiosity. College campuses and universities are some of the few remaining physical places where Americans of different income, ethnic, and ideological backgrounds have the opportunity to interact and engage. More importantly, the leaders of tomorrow are on today’s college campuses; we have a unique opportunity to invest in the future of our democracy by having universities prioritize deliberation, freedom of thought, and reasoned conversation at a moment of deep division and uncertainty.”

Covering The Right Wrong

by A.J. Bauer in Nieman Lab’s Predictions for Journalism 2023

“We should and must expect more thoughtful analysis and news judgement from a mainstream political press that claims to lament the ongoing erosion of democratic norms and institutions…Journalists can’t be so cavalier as to assume that ‘shedding light’ on antisemitism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, and racism is always either harmless or beneficial.” This article also includes a link to the 2021 Field Guide to White Supremacy which includes revisions to the AP Stylebook to help reporters adequately and accurately report on right-wing extremism without advancing its aims.

What Too Little Forgiveness Does to Us

by Timothy Keller in the Opinion Section of the New York Times

In this essay, Dr. Keller describes the way that a culture of forgiveness serves the same goals as justice-seeking. “Many people committed to justice value forgiveness, but others worry that it lets oppressors off the hook. Technology also makes a contribution. Social media is a realm in which missteps and wrongful, impulsive posts are never forgiven. Screenshots of every foolish word you have ever said online can be circulated in perpetuity. And our politics is filled with vitriol. In our cultural moment a conciliatory, forgiving voice is nowhere to be heard. Calls for forgiveness and reconciliation sound like both-sidesism, a mealy-mouthed lack of principle and courage.”

WATCHING

We are including only one resource to watch this month because Horizons wants to stress how powerful this short video is and how much we recommend watching it and reading the accompanying article:

Building Resilient Organizations

by Maurice Mitchell

Any and all organizers, movement leaders and funders working for social change should not miss this short video and read the powerful insights within Maurice’s article Building Resilient Organizations: Toward Joy and Durable Power in a Time of Crisis (co-published in Nonprofit Quarterly, The Forge and Convergence.) “There are things we can and must do to shift movements for justice toward a powerful posture of joy and victory. Such a metamorphosis is not inevitable, but it is essential. This essay describes the problems our movements face, identifies underlying causes, analyzes symptoms of the core problems, and proposes some concrete solutions to reset our course.”

LISTENING TO

Reassessing Radicalization

Think Peace Podcast

“When it comes to violent aggression, you may wonder what it is that can cause someone to commit horrific acts of violence? Is it just plain evil? Genetics? Adverse life experiences? Is it faulty brain chemistry? In this episode of the Think Peace Podcast, host Colette Rausch sits down with Dr. Sumaiya Sheikh to discuss the neuroscience of violent aggression, what can trigger people to become radicalized and then commit violent acts, and what possibilities there may be to prevent violent acts before they happen.”

How Can Business Help Solve America’s Democracy Crisis?

Politics In Question Podcast

Leadership Now CEO Daniella Ballou-Aares discusses the state of US democracy and how businesses can and should be involved. She mentioned the importance of “pre-defining what the factors are where businesses are willing to step out on an issue because political leaders are crossing well-defined lines of what is appropriate in a democracy. These triggers could be: refusal to accept legitimate election results; responding to political violence; political retribution for free speech, etc.” She also highlights the importance of “stepping out in a coalition, which is usually done at the state level, but in some cases can be done nationally (for example, the business coalition re: legitimacy of the 2020 election).”

An Ecology of Intelligence

OnBeing Podcast Playlist

If you have time over the holidays, please take time to enjoy this playlist of podcasts that was compiled by On Being during the autumn of 2022 and includes several episodes from their archives that highlight “the pleasure of thinking deeply together.” The collection was curated as a part of their series following the practice of contemplative reading through James Bridle’s Ways of Being.

INTERESTING TWEETS

FOR FUN

Greater Good Magazine Editors Favorite Books of 2022

“As we enter our third year of a pandemic, many of us are discouraged by the state of the world. Polarization is high, people feel lonely and disconnected, and many have burned out at work or been traumatized by overwhelming loss. This year’s favorite books offer a mixture of advice on how to address these issues through shifting our worldview, improving our social interactions and institutions, and doing what we can to increase our personal well-being.”

At the time of writing our November newsletter, the results of all the US mid-term elections are still unknown. One clear win for democracy was that most of the local Secretary of State and Gubernatorial candidates who were “2020 election deniers” were unsuccessful in their bids for office. As we celebrate the wins of the many pro-democracy candidates and the tireless community organizers around the country, Horizons has been reflecting on Daniel Stid’s recent blog “…the conflation of democracy with politics is one of the biggest challenges to sustaining it. Democracy is so much larger than politics… we have to do a better job demarcating when we’re talking about what, otherwise we can create an idea or expectation that democracy is only working when we get the political wins we want, or that everything we don’t agree with is inherently anti-democratic”.

We still have a lot of work to do on the democracy agenda in the US and globally, and there are many resources and thought leaders offering a path forward. The Brennan Center for Justice provided a thoughtful analysis of How Voter Suppression Legislation is Tied to Race.

Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks from the Harvard Kennedy School recently released a seminal report (commissioned by Social and Economic Justice Leaders Project) Pro-Democracy Organizing against Autocracy in the United States: A Strategic Assessment & Recommendations, that proposes nonviolent resistance strategies, support systems to protect communities at-risk, and infrastructure needed for effective pro-democracy organizing. Others are asking In a Fast-Changing Political Landscape, How is The Democracy Alliance Evolving? And, also offering observations that Philanthropy Needs New Strategies to Save American Democracy.

Jill Vialet from the Center for Social Sector Leadership describes a new form of Democracy Entrepreneurship and highlights the importance of bringing an entrepreneurial mindset to the work of democratic reform. Part of this new mindset is how we talk about democracy, and in his recent opinion piece, How to Strangle Democracy While Pretending to Engage in It, Carlos Lozada reflects on how the rhetoric we use can “move public discourse beyond extreme, intransigent postures of either kind, with the hope that in the process our debates will become more ‘democracy friendly’”.

At Horizons, we are committed to helping build a renewed global democracy movement, and the recent article by Rachel Kleinfeld, A Helsinki Moment for a New Democracy Strategy discusses lessons from the democracy community’s last paradigm shift to provide a lens for seeing what we need next; and, how countries need to work together on shared challenges. Finally, we hope you’ll tune in to the recent podcast interview with Horizons’ Co-Lead and Chief Organizer, Maria Stephan on the Difficult Conversations Podcast where she discusses the US’s long history of authoritarian tendencies, exactly how those tendencies are manifesting today, and how the tools and strategies of nonviolent action can be used to effectively counter them.

As we prepare for the Thanksgiving holidays in the US, we are grateful for all the inspiring work and important ideas reflected in what we’ve been reading, watching, and listening to:

READING

The Pillars of Support Project

By The Horizons Project

Horizons recently launched a new initiative to compile research and make recommendations for engaging different pillars within society that are positioned to incentivize pro-democracy behavior or continue to prop up an authoritarian system. There are many excellent organizations working within these pillars, such as faith communities, the private sector, organized labor, and veterans’ groups to name just a few.

The Role of In-Group Moderates in Faith Communities

by The One America Movement (OAM)

When OAM describes the role of in-group moderates, they “aren’t talking about being politically or socially moderate, compromising your values, or changing who you are. Being an in-group moderate means that you are willing to speak out when members of your community (your friends, your family, your coworkers, your congregation, your political party) behave in a way that contradicts your values. This act of speaking up can look like pulling someone you love aside to explain to them how concerned you are about their words or actions”.

The Importance of Corporate Political Responsibility

by Andrew Winston, Elizabeth Doty, and Thomas Lyon, MIT Sloan Management Review

Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR) is a broader take on old-school corporate social responsibility, or CSR. CPR focuses on how business influences four key systems: the rules of the game (markets, laws, and regulations), civic institutions and representation (for instance, protecting democracy), civil society and public discourse, and natural systems and societal shared resources. The article includes a helpful table on “Putting Corporate Political Responsibility Into Action”.

Could Veterans Put Us on a Path Toward Bringing Respect and Civility Back to Politics?

by Dan Vallone, Stars and Stripes

As we celebrated Veterans Day November 11^th, this special edition of Stars and Stripes highlighted the research of More In Common that found that 86% of Americans say they trust veterans to do what is right for America and 76% say veterans are role models for good citizenship. “This trust and respect holds true for Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike, and speaks to the distinct potential veterans have to bring Americans together across our political divide”.

WATCHING

Perspectives from Neuroscience: Visualizing the Wonders of the Brain

by Dr. Richard J. Davidson; The Wellbeing Summit for Social Change

The Wellbeing Project held a Summit for Social Change in June 2022 that brought together global social, governmental, arts, and business leaders to advance individual and collective wellbeing for those working on the front lines of social change. You can watch all the videos of the presentations and check out the practical tools and arts installations presented at the Summit here. This session on the neuroscience of wellbeing was one of our favorites.

Signals in the Noise

by Reframe

Check out this great Tik Tok explanatory video on how wellness and fitness influencers create pathways to misinformation and QAnon conspiracy theories. (And while you’re there, check out their other super videos on misinformation and other narrative change topics)!

Building and Sustaining Resilience Amid Rising Political Violence

by Western States Center (WSC)

WSC hosted a series of conversations, Looking Forward by Looking Back, to learn from those who have waged a long-term struggle against authoritarianism to reflect on the choices we will make to protect inclusive democracy in the US. If you missed this inspiring webinar sharing important lessons from the experience in South Africa, we highly recommend taking time to watch the recording; you can download the presentation slides here.

LISTENING TO

These Political Scientists Surveyed 500,000 Voters. Here Are Their Unnerving Conclusions

The Ezra Klein Show podcast

John Sides and Lynn Vavreck — political scientists at Vanderbilt and U.C.L.A., respectively — discuss the findings of their new book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. In this podcast, they make an interesting argument that our politics aren’t just polarized, but calcified, describing the process and implications of this calcification.

Complexity & Genius

The Deep Dive podcast with Philip McKenzie

Systems-level change is hard. In this podcast, Jennifer Garvey Berger discusses her new book Unlock Your Complexity Genius which explores how we think about and process complexity and how we leverage that thinking to understand ourselves and the world we inhabit.

Ripples of Hate

StoryCorps podcast

In 2012, StoryCorps broadcast a conversation with a young woman involved in the murder of Mulugeta Seraw, a Black man in Portland, Oregon. A decade later, they revisited it to look at the ripples of racist violence, and a few people who fought to stop it.

How to Depolarize Deeply Divided Societies

The Conversation Weekly podcast

Jennifer McCoy, a political scientist at Georgia State University, is studying cases of depolarization from around the world over the past century. Her research is identifying a couple of fundamental conditions of countries which have successfully depolarized (and sustained it.) Robert Talisse, a political philosopher at Vanderbilt University, describes a different phenomenon that he calls belief polarization. Talisse doesn’t believe polarization can ever be eliminated – only managed. And he has a couple of suggestions for how.

INTERESTING TWEETS

FOR FUN

Fine Acts teamed up with the Democracy & Belonging Forum, an initiative of the Othering and Belonging Institute at the University of California, Berkeley – to produce a collection of powerful visual artworks on the topic of Bridging & Belonging. They “commissioned 40 amazing artists to work on the topic, through the prism of solutions and hope. All works are now published under an open license on thegreats.co, their platform for free social impact art, so that anyone – including educators, activists and nonprofits globally – can use them in their work”.