what american citizens can do to stop democratic party rule

---

"I recollect the decline of republic is a mortal threat to the legitimacy and wellness of capitalism."

—Rebecca Henderson, Harvard Business organisation School¹

The rule of constabulary and republic are crucial to capital markets. A complimentary market place balanced by a democratically elected, transparent and capable authorities, and a strong civil lodge ("an inclusive regime") yield stable growth rates and greater social welfare.² Conversely, threats to commonwealth are threats to the private sector, which is why business leaders and institutional investors cannot afford to remain on the sidelines when such threats emerge.

This newspaper explores the state of American democracy and whether information technology constitutes a systemic risk that impacts fiduciary duties. The newspaper proceeds in three parts. In the commencement, we assess the question of whether American democracy is backsliding towards failure, and argue that it is. In the second, we volition examine whether democratic failure represents a systemic hazard, and conclude that information technology does. In the tertiary office, nosotros offering some preliminary thoughts about what steps major individual sector actors may undertake as function of their fiduciary responsibilities given the threats to U.S. democracy and markets.

Section 1: Is Democracy Declining?

We examine this question forth two cardinal dimensions: public stance and institutional functioning.

The American Public

Based on 6 high-quality surveys conducted in the last twelvemonth and a one-half, back up for democracy as the best form of government remains overwhelming and mostly stable across party lines.ⁱⁱⁱ Nonetheless, most 1 in 5 Americans have views that make them at least open to, if not outright supportive of, absolutism.⁴

Merely there's an important qualification: Americans distinguish sharply between democracy in principle and in practice. There is near-universal agreement that our system is not working well—in particular, that it is not delivering the results people desire. This is troubling because most people value democracy for its fruits, not just its roots.⁵

Given that situation, information technology is not surprising that public support is very loftier for fundamental change in our political organization to make the system piece of work amend. There is no political party of the status quo in contemporary America: both sides want changes, but they disagree about the direction of change. Unfortunately, about 6 in 10 Americans do not think that the system can change.⁶ And because it has not changed despite growing dysfunction, polarization has led to legislative gridlock, which has generated rising back up for unfettered executive activity to carry out the people's volition.

Democracy means the dominion of the people, simply Americans do not fully agree about who belongs to the people. Although there are areas of agreement across partisan and ideological lines, some in our nation hold that to be "truly" American, yous must believe in God, place as Christian, and be born in the Us.⁷ In a flow of increasing immigration and religious pluralism, these divisions can become dangerous.

Disagreements virtually who is truly American are function of a broader cleavage in American culture. 70% of Republicans believe that America'due south culture and fashion of life have changed for the worse since the 1950s, while 63% of Democrats believe that they accept changed for the better.⁸ Strong majorities of Republicans agree that "Things have inverse so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own county," that "Today, America is in danger of losing its culture and identity," and that "the American mode of life needs to exist protected for foreign influences." Majorities of Democrats decline these propositions.

Support for political violence is significant. In February 2021, 39% of Republicans, 31% of Independents, and 17% of Democrats agreed that "if elected leaders will non protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent deportment." In Nov, 30% of Republicans, 17% of Independents, and xi% of Democrats agreed that they might have to resort to violence in order to save our country."^ix

While public support for many of the reforms in federal compromise legislation is strong, there is a divide in the electorate on what they view as the largest problem in our current system.¹⁰ In September, but 36% believed that "rules that make it also difficult for eligible citizens to vote" constituted the largest problem for our elections, compared to 45% who identified "rules that are not strict enough to prevent illegal votes from being cast" equally the largest problem.

The decision we draw from this quick review of public opinion is that if democracy fails in America, it will not exist because a majority of Americans is demanding a non-democratic form of authorities. It volition exist because an organized, purposeful minority seizes strategic positions within the arrangement and subverts the substance of democracy while retaining its vanquish—while the bulk isn't well organized, or doesn't care enough, to resist. As nosotros show in a after section, the possibility that this will occur is far from remote.

American Institutions

A second fashion of considering whether republic is failing is to expect at the institutions of government. Successful democratic systems are non designed for governments composed of upstanding men and women who are only interested in the public good. If leaders were ever virtuous there would be no need for checks and balances.

The Founding Fathers understood this. They designed a organization to protect minority points of view, to protect us from leaders inclined to lie, cheat and steal, and (paradoxically) to protect the majority against minorities who are determined to subvert the constitutional order.

During the Trump presidency, the formal institutional "guardrails" of democracy—Congress, the federalist organisation, the Courts, the bureaucracy, and the press—held firm against enormous pressure. At the aforementioned time, there is evidence that the informal norms of conduct that shape the operation of these institutions have weakened significantly, making them more than vulnerable to future efforts to subvert them.¹¹ There is no guarantee that our constitutional democracy will survive another sustained—and likely better-organized—assault in the years to come.

We begin with the good news about our institutions.

Erstwhile President Trump did not succeed in materially weakening the powers of the Congress.¹² He did not effort to disband Congress, and while he often fought that institution, it fought back. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had no trouble confronting him, and Democrats brought impeachment charges confronting him not once but twice. Although speculation was rampant, in the end so-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not block either trial. While old Leader McConnell and allies accept been called onetime President Trump'south lapdogs, on virtually all domestic policy bug they have acted like almost any Republican majority would deed, and on foreign policy former Leader McConnell neither stopped nor punished Republican senators who tried to constrain Trump when they idea he was wrong.¹³

The American system is a federalist system. The Constitution distributes power between the federal government and the land regime, codification in the 10^thursday Amendment to the Constitution. States have repeatedly and successfully exercised their power confronting former President Trump, especially in two areas, COVID-19 and voting.¹⁴

Despite Mr. Trump's attempts to pressure the nation'southward governors and other state officials into doing what he wanted, he did not inflict lasting damage on the federalist system, and the states are no weaker—perhaps even stronger—than they were earlier his presidency. Citizens now understand that in a crisis, states are the ones who control things that are important to them similar shutdown orders and vaccine distribution.

In the spring of 2020 then-President Trump, anxious to get past COVID in time for his re-election entrada, was pushing difficult for states to open upward early on. But a few complied, while many—including some Republican governors—ignored him. Seeing that the governors were non scared of him, Mr. Trump then threatened to withhold medical equipment based on states' decisions about opening up. He came up against the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 10^th Subpoena, which prevents the president from workout federal assist on the footing of governors' acquiescing to a president's demands.¹⁵

The guardrails betwixt the federal government and u.s. too held when information technology came to Mr. Trump's campaign to reverse the 2020 ballot results. In Georgia, the Republican Secretary of Land Brad Raffensperger, a stalwart Republican and Trump supporter, certified election results in spite of personal calls and threats from the president. In Michigan, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and Republican Firm Speaker Lee Chatfield did not give in to Trump'due south attempts to get them to diverge from the process of choosing electors.

One of the hallmarks of declining democracies is a weak judicial organization under heavy political control. But under assault from so-President Trump, the judiciary remained independent despite his repeated attempts to win in the courts what he could non win at the ballot box. President Trump-appointed judges often made decisions that thwarted Mr. Trump'south attempts to overturn the results. In fact, afterward the election Mr. Trump'south team and allies brought 62 lawsuits and won exactly one.¹⁶ (The others he either dropped or lost.) Many of those decisions were handed down by Republican judges.¹⁷ Peradventure erstwhile President Trump'due south biggest disappointment was the Supreme Court's conclusion non to hear election challenges concerning states he claimed he had won.¹⁸

A costless press is an essential element of a healthy democracy. Former President Trump spent iv years using the not bad pulpit of the presidency to mock the printing, calling them names and "the enemy of the people" and referring to outlets he does not like as "failing." He revoked the press credentials of reporters he did not like. (The courts restored them.) However, reporters were not afraid to phone call out his lies. With Mr. Trump out of office for months now, no major news outlets have gone broke. Few are afraid to criticize quondam President Trump or his supporters.

The free press is withal fundamentally gratis (although President Trump undoubtably contributed to some refuse in public trust of the media, which in plow weakens its oversight and accountability functions). Its financial and structural issues, most of which are attributable to the challenges of internet age, predated Mr. Trump. Some debate that former President Trump increased distrust in the media but, equally polling indicates, the lack of trust in media declined to less than fifty percent in the start decade of the 21^st century and has stayed in the low forties in recent years.^xix

One final point: democracies often fail when their armed services sides with anti-democratic insurgents. Merely in the United States, the tradition of civil control over the military machine remains strong—especially within the armed forces. Afterward the chaos in Lafayette Park concluding June, when Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared with so-President Trump in military fatigues, Mr. Milley and other top military leaders went out of their way to reaffirm this tradition, which is drilled into all officers throughout their careers. A military insurrection is the least likely fashion for democracy in America to terminate.^twenty

So why are we worried?

Although scholars and pundits have long chronicled with regret the rise of partisan polarization and the reject of congressional effectiveness, concern almost the outright failure of American republic was rare before the ascension of Donald Trump. Never before in American history have we had a candidate, non to mention a president, who disparaged the integrity of the electoral system and who hinted repeatedly during his ballot that he would not take the results of the election if he lost. This behavior began during the Republican primaries and continued in advance of the 2016 election, which he won, and the 2020 election, which he lost.²¹ It congenital to a crescendo that exploded on January 6, 2021, when supporters, called to Washington for a "Terminate the Steal" rally, marched to the Capitol, attacked police enforcement officers, vandalized offices, and breached the Senate gallery where the electoral higher vote was supposed to be taking identify.

The non-cease attacks on American elections were function of a broader assail on the truth. Any story Mr. Trump and his supporters disliked became "fake news," creating, slowly but surely, an alternate universe that encompassed everything from the integrity of the election to public health guidelines for the COVID pandemic. The very existence of a sizeable number of citizens who cannot agree on facts is an enormous threat to commonwealth. As the Yale historian Timothy Snyder points out in his 2018 book, The Road to Unfreedom, authoritarians like Vladimir Putin have no use for truth or for the facts, because they utilise and disseminate simply what will assist them achieve and maintain power.²² Equally our colleague Jonathan Rauch argues in The Constitution of Knowledge, disinformation and the war on reality take reached "epistemic" proportions.²³

Even though constitutional processes prevailed and Mr. Trump is no longer president, he and his followers continue to weaken American democracy by disarming many Americans to distrust the results of the election. Most iii-quarters of rank-and-file Republicans believe that there was massive fraud in 2020 and Joe Biden was not legitimately elected president. "A 'Politico'/Morning Consult survey plant that more than than ane-third of American voters feel the 2020 ballot should be overturned, including 3 out of 5 Republicans."²⁴

The aftermath of the 2020 election revealed structural weaknesses in the institutions designed to safeguard the integrity of the balloter process. A focus of business organization is the Electoral Count Human activity of 1887, which was adopted in response to the contested ballot of 1876. This legislation is and then ambiguously drafted that one of former President Trump'south lawyers used information technology every bit the basis of a memorandum arguing that sometime Vice President Pence, whom the Constitution designates as the chair of the meeting at which the Balloter College ballots are counted, had the correct to ignore certified slates of electors the states had sent to Washington. If Mr. Pence had yielded to then-President Trump's pressure level to act in this mode, the election would have been thrown into chaos and the Constitution placed in jeopardy.²⁵

Recently, former President Trump'southward assault on the integrity of the 2020 ballot has taken a new and unsafe plow. Rather than focusing on federal government, his supporters have focused on the obscure globe of election mechanism. Republican majorities in state legislatures are passing laws making it harder to vote and weakening the ability of ballot officials to practice their jobs. In many states, especially closely contested ones such as Arizona and Georgia, Mr. Trump'due south supporters are trying to defeat incumbents who upheld the integrity of the election and supervene upon them with the old President'due south supporters.²⁶

At the local level, death threats are existence made against Democratic and Republican ballot administrators, with up to thirty% of ballot officials surveyed maxim they are concerned for their safety.²⁷ Equally seasoned ballot administrators retire or just quit, Mr. Trump supporters are vying for these obscure simply pivotal positions. In Michigan, for instance, the Washington Post reports that there is intense focus on the boards charged with certifying the vote at the county level. Republicans who voted against former President Trump's efforts to change the vote count are being replaced. And most dangerous of all, some states are considering laws that would featherbed the long-established institutions for certifying the vote-count and give partisan legislatures the authority to decide which slate of electors will stand for them in the Electoral College.

American democracy is thus under assail from the ground up. The nigh recent systematic attack on state and local election machinery is much more dangerous than the chaotic statements of a disorganized former president. A motility that relied on Mr. Trump's organizational skills would pose no threat to constitutional institutions.  A motion inspired by him with a clear objective and a detailed program to achieve information technology would be some other affair birthday.

The chances that this threat will materialize over the next few years are high and rising. The bear witness suggests that Mr. Trump is preparing in one case once again to seek the Republican presidential nomination—and that he will win the nomination if he tries for it. Even if he decides not to do so, the party's base will insist on a nominee who shares the old president's outlook and is willing to participate in a plan to win the presidency past subverting the results of state elections if necessary. The consequences could include an extended period of political and social instability, and an outbreak of mass violence.

Department 2: Does a failing commonwealth threaten the private sector?

For several reasons, America's private sector has a huge stake in the outcome of the struggle for American democracy.

In a contempo Harvard Business Review commodity headlined "Business concern Tin't Take Commonwealth for granted," Rebecca Henderson argues,

American business needs American republic. Complimentary markets cannot survive without the support of the kind of capable, accountable regime that tin can set up the rules of the game that continue markets genuinely free and fair. Andonlyrepublic can ensure that governments are held accountable, that they are viewed every bit legitimate, and that they don't devolve into the dominion of the many by the few and the kind of crony capitalism that nosotros encounter emerging in so many parts of the world.²⁸

Henderson farther argues that, just as democracy sets the rules of the game for the private sector, the private sector can help to go on in place republic'south "soft guardrails," such as the "unwritten norms of mutual toleration and forbearance" upon which republic relies.²⁹ "CEOs are widely trusted by the American public, "and then the attitudes of the private sector towards government and democracy are consequential.³⁰ Because the free market and democracy are interdependent, a systemic risk to 1 is, by definition, a systemic risk to the other.

Transnational evidence from the Earth Banking concern and Freedom Business firm bolsters Henderson's claim,³¹ as does the pioneering work by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson on the relationship between economic prosperity and political accountability.³² Sarah Repucci, Vice President of Inquiry & Analysis at Freedom House, writes, "The political crackdowns and security crises associated with authoritarian dominion oft bulldoze out business organization and identify employees, supply chains, and investments at risk, in addition to raising reputational and legal concerns for strange companies that stay involved."³³ This underscores that information technology is in the investment customs's own interest to actively button back on efforts to weaken or dismantle these democratic systems. The very nature of checks and balances provides for the stability of a costless market place, ensuring that a gratis and engaged citizenry will provide the virtually stabilizing marketplace forces. "A more democratic world would exist a more stable, inviting place for established democracies to trade and invest."³⁴

The elementary fact is that it is hard to plan and invest for the time to come in volatile, unstable circumstances. The United states is not exempt from the calculus of political take chances analysis, even if we are not accustomed to applying information technology to our own land. Investors take a fiduciary duty that is dependent on their understanding and attempting to deal with systemic risk. Co-ordinate to a recent report, "Decisions fabricated by fiduciaries cascade downwards the investment chain affecting decision-making processes, ownership practices and ultimately, the way in which companies are managed."³⁵

Moreover, equally overseas firms and countries begin to worry virtually the stability of our laws and institutions, they will think twice about investing in the United states, and mutually beneficial international partnerships volition exist harder to negotiate. Economists concur that "the free market needs costless politics and a healthy order."³⁶

The state of affairs is worsened past the fact that large corporations in America are in a weakened position to withstand political attack. Co-ordinate to the Gallup organisation, which has explored public confidence in major institutions for about half a century, the share of Americans expressing very niggling or no confidence in big business has never been higher, not even in the depth of the Great Recession. Among the 17 institutions Gallup assessed, confidence in large business ranked 15^th, ahead of simply television news and the U.Southward. Congress. Complicating its political claiming in a polarized state, corporate America is increasingly challenged past employees, activists, and indeed some shareholders to take stands on divisive social and political bug in ways that both reflect and reinforce blue/ruddy polarization.

For much of the past century, Republicans were the champions, and Democrats the critics, of corporate America. But now the lack of support for large business is pervasive across the political spectrum. In mid-2019, 54% of Republicans had a positive assessment of big business's impact on the course of our national life. 2 years later, this figure had fallen to thirty%, about the same as for Democrats. Republican support for banks and fiscal institutions as well every bit engineering science companies underwent a similar decline.³⁷ If an elected demagogue citing national security or a hot-push button social issue sought to restrict the independence of the private sector, public opposition to this attempt would probable exist muted at best.

At the aristocracy level, the traditional bonds betwixt the Republican Party and large business are also breaking downwardly. For example, a recent op-ed past Republican Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) calls out corporate America for taking sides in the culture war: "Today, corporate America routinely flexes its power to humiliate politicians if they cartel back up traditional values at all."³⁸

In short, while more piece of work remains to exist washed, we believe that the fate of democracy constitutes a systemic risk to markets. The fate of democracy and that of the private sector are inextricably linked, and private sector leaders have reasons of self-interest as well as principle to do what they tin can to strengthen republic.

Section 3: What tin the private sector exercise to strengthen democracy?

The individual sector has a long and venerable track record in the public sphere. Perhaps the best- known campaign began on college campuses in the 1980s to encourage universities to cease their investments in companies doing business in apartheid South Africa. This movement spread to alimony funds and to cities and states. By 1990, over 200 U.S. companies had cutting investment ties with South Africa. By 1994, Nelson Mandela, the leader of the anti-apartheid movement who was freed after almost three decades in prison, had been elected president of post-apartheid South Africa.³⁹

Other examples of corporate action include the Sudan divestment movement of the early-mid 2000s prompted by the Darfur genocide, which resulted in about one-half the U.S. states passing divestment statutes that remain in force for many state pension funds. The U.N. Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge, signed by almost 130 companies from the banking and finance sector, took place alongside the U.South. government's tough regulatory push. More recently, in response to the Black Lives Matter motion, companies pledged nearly $50 billion to address racial inequality.^forty Many companies have made pledges or commitments to fight climatic change—for instance, through Climate Activeness 100+ "an investor-led initiative to ensure the world's largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change."⁴¹ Union equality is another case of such touch.⁴² While progress remains uneven, investor action is making a difference.

In more recent years much of corporate America and Wall Street, including many large multinationals, accept signed onto the UN Guiding Principles on Business organization and Human being Rights/UNGP (June 2011) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals/SDGs (September 2015).

Finally, the movement for ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing is stiff and growing. Driven by investor need and regulatory pressure, more than and more institutional investors are implementing ESG investing. Asset owners such as pension funds are increasingly demanding sustainable investing strategies.

Until recently, democracy has not been a focus of corporate campaigns in the public sphere. However, in response to the 2020 presidential election and sometime President Trump's attempts to overturn the results, some corporations entered the fray. In belatedly October of 2020, a group of key business organization leaders, led by the Business concern Roundtable, the National Clan of Manufacturers and the U.Due south Sleeping room of Commerce, issued a statement defending the integrity of the balloter procedure. When it became articulate that Biden had won the ballot, members of this group made statements in support of honoring the outcomes, and they declared that the transition process for the peaceful transfer of power should begin immediately.⁴³ Numerous companies halted their PAC donations to candidates who had voted against certifying the election results—and some, such equally Charles Schwab, announced that it would terminate its political giving altogether "in light of a divided political climate and an increase in attacks on those participating in the political process."⁴⁴

The part of the individual sector did not end with Joe Biden's inauguration in January of 2021. Equally country afterward land moved to enact laws restricting the right to vote, corporations once again took action. In May of 2021, hundreds of corporations and executives including Amazon, BlackRock, Google, and Warren Buffett issued a argument opposing "whatever discriminatory legislation" that would make it harder for people to vote.⁴⁵ Kenneth Chenault, a former primary executive of American Express, organized the unified statement, highlighting that "throughout our history, corporations take spoken upward on different problems. Information technology's absolutely the responsibleness of companies to speak upward, particularly on something as cardinal equally the correct to vote."⁴⁶ State and local officials, both past and current officeholders, applauded this statement and urged its signatories to do even more than to protect commonwealth.⁴⁷

The continuing involvement of the private sector in the defense of commonwealth is essential for republic, and for business concern itself. As a Chatham Firm written report stated recently, "Business should recognize its ain stake in the shared space of the rule of police force, accountable governance, and civic freedoms…. Business has a responsibility – in its own interest and that of society – to support the pillars of profitable and sustainable operating environments."⁴⁸

Discharging this responsibility requires a articulate-eyed assessment of the dangers nosotros face. Every bit we have argued, the greatest threat to democracy in America is not that a majority of Americans will turn against democracy. It is that strategically placed land and local majorities will collude with an organized and purposeful national minority to seize command of cardinal electoral institutions and subvert the will of the people.

In this context, the responsibility of large investment institutions is clear: to remain vigilant in the face of ongoing threats to democracy, to do everything in their ability to urge corporate leaders to remain involved in the fight for democracy, and to advantage them when they exercise. This responsibility can exist discharged well-nigh finer when investment institutions establish the framework for ongoing consideration of this issue—and when they act collectively in defense of the autonomous institutions without which prosperity every bit well as freedom is at risk.

Section 4: For Further Give-and-take

The above word sets the stage for an activity calendar. To get-go the discussion, investors need to ask themselves the post-obit questions:

1. Should threats to U.S. constitutional order as discussed in this paper be classified as a systemic risk to markets? And if and so, is there a fiduciary duty on the function of investors to identify and pursue mitigating steps?
2. Should corporate boards and primary executives of portfolio companies support efforts to protect the right of all Americans to vote in U.S. elections and condemn measures that unfairly restrict those rights?
3. Should investors build into stewardship platforms a policy of mitigating adventure to U.S. Constitutional integrity?
4. Should portfolio companies follow responsible business practices by urging organizations to which they belong to terminate any financial or other support for measures that result in voter suppression in the U.Southward., and to withdraw from such organizations if such efforts fail?
5. Should portfolio companies end whatever political contributions associated with elected officials or candidates for elected role who decline to accept the legitimate outcome of U.s. elections or who back up seditious acts?
6. Should investors regularly monitor fiscal agents they may employ to ensure that they are aligned both in word and deed with our efforts to address the systemic risks to U.South. constitutional integrity?

---

About the authors

William A. Galston holds the Ezra 1000. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institution'due south Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a Senior Fellow. Prior to January 2006 he was the Saul Stern Professor and Acting Dean at the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, managing director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, founding director of the Center for Data and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Circle), and executive director of the National Committee on Civic Renewal. A participant in half-dozen presidential campaigns, he served from 1993 to 1995 as Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy. Galston is the author of ten books and more than than 100 articles in the fields of political theory, public policy, and American politics. His most contempo books areAnti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy(Yale, 2018),Public Matters (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), andThe Practice of Liberal Pluralism (Cambridge, 2004). A winner of the American Political Scientific discipline Association'southward Hubert H. Humphrey award, he was elected to the American University of Arts and Sciences in 2004. He writes a weekly column for the Wall Street Periodical.

Elaine C. Kamarck is a Senior Young man in the Governance Studies program likewise equally the Managing director of the Center for Constructive Public Management at the Brookings Establishment. She is an expert on American balloter politics and regime innovation and reform in the United states, OECD nations, and developing countries. Kamarck is the author of "Primary Politics: Everything You lot Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates" and "Why Presidents Fail And How They Can Succeed Over again." Kamarck is too a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy Schoolhouse of Government. She served in the White Firm from 1993 to 1997, where she created and managed the Clinton Administration's National Performance Review, also known as the "reinventing government initiative." Kamarck conducts research on the American presidency, American politics, the presidential nominating process and government reform and innovation.

---

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent enquiry and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that inquiry, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its management, or its other scholars.

Amazon, BlackRock, and Google provide general, unrestricted funding to the Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this written report are non influenced by whatever donation. Brookings recognizes that the value it provides is in its absolute delivery to quality, independence, and impact. Activities supported by its donors reflect this delivery.

despeissislatchaving.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-democracy-failing-and-putting-our-economic-system-at-risk/

Share this post